inquired of the right hon. Gentleman when he would take the Committee stage of the Bill after that day?

said, that he was not then in a position to state, as it would depend very much upon the progress made with the measure that day.

observed, that it would be for the convenience of the House that the right hon. Gentleman should name a day for resuming the discussion of the Bill on the close of Business that day.

said, he would take the course most conducive to the progress of the measure, and in the course of the day would endeavour to make a statement on the subject; at present it was impossible for him to say more.

remarked that in 1872 a day was given to each stage of the Coal Mines Bill. It was desirable to avoid taking the discussion in fragments.

Motion agreed to.

said, that although he was anxious, along with other Members, to say a few words on this subject, he would readily have foregone his own claim to take part in the discussion, if he had thought that the points dwelt upon by hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House had been fully appreciated by the Government, or if the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) had not imparted an unnecessarily controversial tone to the discussion. In particular, the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department had taken no notice of the important remarks made by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Pickard) on the subject of weighing. For his part, he had no desire to give a political complexion to the discussion at all. The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell), in the course of his fair and moderate speech, said that he did not think that Liberals were entitled to have a mono- poly of legislation for the beneficent purpose of saving life. He was sure Liberals would gladly welcome competition from the Conservative Party in any such object. He had no desire to undervalue the legislation the Conservative Party had already introduced in this direction, though he thought it would not be difficult to show that the Liberal Party had actually led the van in all legislation for the benefit of the labouring classes; and he made this remark now not for the sake of alluding to what had been done in the past, but in the hope that it might affect the deliberations of the Government in disposing of the Bill. He thought the reason why the Conservative Party had fallen short of the Liberal Party was this—that although there were many large employers of labour and capitalists amongst the Conservative Party who took a liberal and enlightened view of their relations towards their workmen, and believed a liberal and enlightened policy would serve their interests best, there were, he was afraid, others who took a less wise and enlightened view, and he thought the history of past legislation would show that the latter class had too often the ear of the Government and prevented them from approaching the problem of the relations between employer and employed in a really frank and thorough spirit, and determining to go to the root of these questions and do justice fairly between man and man. The hon. Member for Wigan described the Bill as an effort for the better protection of life. It was perfectly true the preservation of human life was probably the leading motive both of the existing Mines Regulation Act and the Bill the Government had laid before the House; but he would remind the House that was not the sole object of the Bill, and that there were other questions of great importance to which it was extremely desirable attention should be given. Even if they limited their attention to the object of the saving of life, he thought the Government would do well at this stage to give heed to some of the remarks of Members acquainted with the question before coming to a final conclusion as to the shape the Bill was to assume. One of these questions was the age and the hours boys were to labour. If this question were fully considered, he believed the Home Secretary would come to the conclusion that the Amendments on the Paper for the shortening of the hours of labour for boys and the limitation as to the age of boys were necessary ones. Another point to which he would ask attention was the subject of inspection, which was not now an open one, as the State had already assumed the responsibility of inspecting mines. The point, therefore, was whether the inspection was satisfactory and efficient, because, if it were not, it was worse than no inspection at all. He referred to this question in no carping spirit, because he was aware of the difficulties with which it was surrounded, and particularly that of expense; but he would ask the Government to consider what the object of the statutory inspection was intended to be? Was it merely intended to be an investigation after an accident happened such as was made in Scotland by officers of the law, whose duty it was to make such inquiry, or was it intended as a preventative? Were the Inspectors expected to see beforehand that the mine was in a satisfactory state, and complied with the regulations and provisions of the Act of Parliament? If the latter was the view the Government took, he made bold to say it was not carried out at the present moment, and it was, therefore, desirable that further provision should be made for its being done. He could say with confidence there were many mines that were practically never inspected. He said so without casting any imputation or reflection upon the Inspectors themselves; they were capable men and anxious to do their duty; but it was simply impossible for them to inspect the number of mines they had in their districts. It would be interesting to know, in regard to the accidents that happened recently in Lanarkshire, how long it was since the mines in question were inspected, particularly in the case of the last accident at Motherwell, as it would have been easy to remedy the defective machinery that caused it. He regretted that the Government had paid no attention in their reply to the criticisms of the hon. Member for Normanton with respect to the clauses of the Bill which were intended to secure that the workmen should have the full reward of their labour. It had been said, with regard to the deductions from the wages of the men and the methods of weighing, that the present provisions of the Act were inefficient and faulty, and the consequence was that men were systematically deprived of a considerable portion of their wages to which they were entitled. It might be asked whether provisions to see that a workman got the full reward of his labour would be in place in such an Act; and, again, he would remind the House that the principle of legislation on this subject was completely recognized by the existing Act. A very plausible argument, no doubt, might be urged to the fact that employers and workmen should be allowed to enter into their contracts face to face, and that Her Majesty's Government should make no attempt to interfere. It was too late to seek to introduce that principle, because they had already departed from it. The check-weigher had a statutory position given to him under the existing Act, and the number of Amendments upon the Paper with regard to this matter showed what immense importance was attached to it by everyone who understood the subject, and the necessity for making the powers of the check-weigher thoroughly real and sufficient. So far as his own knowledge and experience went, it completely corroborated the statement made by the hon. Member for Normanton. In some collieries a system like this prevailed—the men were paid by the ton, but the ton was required to contain 22½ cwt., or some other amount considerably exceeding the Imperial ton. Not only so, but he knew collieries existing where workmen had worked for 30 years without being aware of it, and it was only when a check-weigher had been appointed within the last year or two that the system had been discovered. When it had been discovered the employer then made it a matter of contract, and the defence of such a system appeared to be that the men might legitimately contract for so many hundredweights or for so many tons. In the same way he was informed the control of the check-weighers was not efficient, as he could not secure that the hutches were properly weighed. As he was informed, if the output of the various collieries over the country were compared with the wages paid according to weight, there would be shown a very large surplus of the output over the quantity that was accounted for, thus showing that the workmen had been defrauded of their pay to a large extent. It might appear almost incredible that such a system should prevail. But the complaints of the workmen on this head did not rest only on the statements now made. By the Truck Commission of 1872 it was proved that the workman was deprived of a large amount of the benefit of his wages; and, therefore, it was not at all wonderful that these further revelations with regard to weighing should now be made. What he complained of on the part of the Government hitherto was that they did not appear to have given sufficient weight to so great an evil. He did not for a moment say the remedy was in all cases perfectly easy—either in the case of weight under the Coal Mines Act or in the case of truck—but he did say that when a Government was confronted with the fact that the workmen in the mining industry were by one means or another deprived of the fruits of their labour the evils should be acknowledged and the difficulty faced, and there should be a more earnest and candid endeavour to reform evils that existed than he had seen any trace of on the part of the Government. He was quite sure that in so doing the Government would consult the best interests of capital as well as of labour. He was sure he could say for himself, and he had no doubt for all sitting on that side of the House, that, so far from having any desire to set up one interest against the other, their earnest desire was to see capital and labour working in combination. He called upon the Government to give a more frank recognition of this evil, and to apply their minds to it; and if they did so, they would from that side of the House receive the most cordial co-operation, and the most warm appreciation of their efforts in that direction.

said, he thought that naked lights should not be allowed in the same ventilating district of a mine where safety lamps were necessary. Naked lights might be used in certain parts of such a district with perfect safety if everybody did exactly what he was expected to do; but he was informed that accidents arose from miners carrying these naked lights into the parts where safety lamps ought only to be used. As to examining miners for matches, he thought it was necessary, and that some means might be devised of doing this without outraging the dignity and manhood of the workmen. Unless the right to examine for matches was given, the elaborate provisions of the Bill to insure safety appeared useless; it was just as if they were to caulk a ship very carefully except in one place, and then to leave a large hole in the bottom. Another question of great importance was the position of the manager. Unless the position of the manager was upheld there would be no safety in mines. At present the manager of a mine could only be prosecuted for neglect of duty through the intervention of the Secretary of State, who, of course, would act under the advice of the Inspector for the district. The Bill proposed that the manager of the mine could be prosecuted by anybody, and this would undoubtedly open the way for frivolous prosecutions. In his opinion, the owner and agent should be liable to prosecution for anything done personally, just as much as anyone else might be; but a manager's position was totally different. His position was like that of the captain of an Atlantic liner with the owners and agents on board. The owner down a mine was nothing more than a mere supercargo. Power must be given where responsibility was given; even, where necessary, the power to break rules which would have to be carried out implicitly by others with less responsibility, just as a stationmaster at a railway station was often called upon to do. Under these circumstances, he felt that the manager should not be liable to prosecution except with the consent of the Secretary of State, as at present. He would tell them straight what his views were with regard to the check-weigher. Every facility should be given to the check-weigher to check the weight; but he ought not to be allowed to stop work. He would give the House an illustration of what he meant. Supposing a check-weigher were secretary of a union which had issued an "ukase" to limit the output, he might abuse his position as check-weigher and stop the working of the mine by rebuking a man for getting too much coal. That, in his (Colonel Blundell's) opinion, would be wrong. Let a check-weigher be secretary of the union if they would; but, if he were, he must learn to separate his duty as a check-weigher from his duty as secretary. At the pit he must be check-weigher, and nothing else. With reference to the question of the employment of women, a vivid picture had been the other day drawn of a Lancashire colliery by a Yorkshire artist, who described the women employed in these collieries as being a sort of giantesses employed to haul tons of coal. That, however, was a figment of imagination, and not a description of fact, as these women were engaged chiefly to take away the impurities of the coal as it passed through the screens. This work was far better done by women than by men, and if it were monopolized by men in other districts, he strongly recommended the Society for the Protection of Female Labour to look into the matter. As was stated by one hon. Member the other night, the question was a very serious one. The Bill only affected 500,000 people; but if they touched the question of female labour, they touched a question affecting the better half of the population in more senses than one. By all means let female labour be regulated; but do not diminish female labour if the conduct of women was good. They had irrefutable testimony on this point from ministers of religion and others. If a Commission were appointed to inquire into the question of female labour, it ought to be with a view of increasing it, not diminishing it. The question of the inspection of mines had been touched upon, and on this point he thought there ought to be an annual inspection, irrespective of the occasional visits, in order that the State should be better acquainted with its coal supply, and know about the coal being wasted and left below. Some day it might be regretted that this was not attended to. Then, he might mention one matter which had been already attended to—the subject of weights. The Bill provided for this; but he thought the Government had had in view the necessity of having proper weighers; but still there seemed to be left out of view the point that the men did not get the full weight of their labour. It was not that they got more to do; but what the men looked to was that they should get full remuneration. It had been mentioned that there was an arrangement between the masters and the men; but on this subject there would be more discussion when the clauses of the Bill were debated. He thought the Government had by the Bill considered very carefully the recom- mendations of the Report of the Royal Commission, and, in his opinion, the Bill was a good one.

said, he rose to express the disappointment of the miners in the Derbyshire district at the contents of the Bill. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had a special advantage in considering the previous Bill introduced by his Predecessors, though, undoubtedly, that Bill would have required considerable alterations. It was the greater disappointment that after the right hon. Gentleman had had the means of ascertaining the wishes and views of miners, as represented by a large deputation, a more satisfactory Bill had not been introduced. It was a curious fact that in the discussions upon the Bill so far, nearly all those who spoke with authority as Representatives of colliery workmen had severely criticized various parts of the Bill; while, on the other hand, those who might be taken as representing the capitalist view had expressed their approval. It might, therefore, be assumed that it was a masters' Bill, and not a working colliers' Bill—a mines Bill, not a miners' Bill. A very important question was that of the check-weighers. In Derbyshire there had been much complaint on this head, and there had been some very cruel dismissals of check-weighers simply for doing their duty. In one case brought under his notice all the men engaged were discharged, and afterwards all were re-engaged except the check-weigher, and he was practically Boycotted, word being sent round to all the collieries in the district not to employ him. The position of the check-weigher was difficult enough. If he did his duty to the men he was subject to be sent away by the manager, and if he sought to please the manager, then his position was made untenable by the dissatisfaction of the men. All that was wanted was that the position of the check-weigher should be settled once for all, so that he could do his duty fairly to all concerned. All that the men asked for on the point was that the coal they worked with so much toil and risk should be fairly weighed, and their labour properly remunerated. On the question of the manager, it was desirable that, where he had a number of pits under his control, he should have full responsibility under the meaning of the Act. Most important, also, was it that managers and under-managers should have had at least five years' practical experience. Without this their management would be of little use in a mine. The question of safety lamps, too, was one of first importance, and in every case the lamps should be well tested with gas. Science would, he hoped, in due course adapt the electric light for use in mining; but until then too much precaution could not be exercised in testing lamps. The employment of boys under 12 was a thing much to be deprecated, and in the interests of education, if for nothing else, there should be a provision against such employment. One other question with which the Bill ought to deal was the use of timber. It had been said, on good authority, that two-thirds of the loss of life in mining operations arose from the falls of roofs and sides, and many such accidents would be avoided if there was always a plentiful supply of timber at the pit-bank. He hoped some amendment in the Bill would insure this. For two years he had been actively in contact with the mining class, and found them a hardy, honourable set of men, and the House was well employed in legislating for the interests of the men in their always arduous, and often dangerous, occupation. He hoped, therefore, that this Bill would not be made in any way a matter of Party feeling, but that the House would be guided by a desire to work for the miners' safety as far as possible.

said, it was not his intention to indulge much in finding fault with the Government for the sins of omission in the Bill. He was prepared to be thankful for small mercies. Still, there was one point to which he considered it his duty to call attention. One of the first sentences that met the eye in perusing the Preamble of the Bill was of the proposed alterations in the law relating to a subject recently investigated by a Royal Commission appointed to inquire into accidents in mines. But he found that what, to his mind, was one of the most important subjects dealt with by the Commission was all but forgotten in the proposed alterations in the law. He meant the means of minimizing the accidents that occurred from the falls of coals from the roofs and sides, by re- cognizing and providing for the practical training of colliers, without which, in his opinion, no man was able to protect himself properly against this fruitful cause of accidents. The Government should seriously consider this matter, with the view of placing in the Bill something that would make it imperative that a man following the hazardous occupation of a miner should be properly trained. True, the Bill provided that, where timbering was done by the workmen, suitable timbers should be provided for the men in places convenient for them. So far, very good. But in doing that the Bill only provided indirectly for a seventh of the recommendations made by that most important Commission, and on this point only provided for a third of their direct recommendations. On page 13 of their Report it would be found that the Commission stated that, from statistics given in evidence by Mr. Dickenson, it appeared that the deaths caused in the coal mines of Great Britain by the fall of roofs and sides since 1850 were as follows:—In the 10 years ending 1860 37·5–6 per cent of the total deaths from accidents of all descriptions were due to that cause; 39·1 per cent in the 10 years to 1870; and 39·7 per cent during the 10 years to 1880. During the years 1882–3 the proportion had risen 41·5 and 44 per cent respectively. It would, therefore, be conclusive from these figures that deaths from falls of roofs and sides were gradually increasing year by year. Then, to meet this state of affairs, the same Commission said—

"While we are unable, for the reasons mentioned, to specify which system of timbering is best, the experience of 10 years' supervision and improvement secured under the Mines Act renders it certain that much may be done towards reducing the number of deaths from accidents and falls by paying attention to the following points."

The first point was that to which they had already called attention, the maintenance of ample supplies of timber in localities convenient to the workmen. It was provided for by the Bill, and he thanked the Government for it. The second point was the proper training of each miner to the best mode of timbering and otherwise protecting his working place. For this important recommendation he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had not found a place in the Bill. The third point was the exercising of increased care on the part of the workmen in watching the roofs and sides and faces, and protecting themselves at all times. To speak in that language to unpractical men was foolishness. It was ridiculous to speak to untrained men in the terms of the Commission. The Commission, however, recognized the necessity of practical training, and here science and practice and experience went together, because—and he was glad to find it so—the working men, with their employers, and the Commission were of one opinion on this most important subject. The Commission admitted the necessity of practical training for miners, and it was made clear by them that such training was one of the most important factors in the protection of miners from falls. At page 13 of their Report the Commission again said—

"As will be seen from the record of deaths from falls of the roofs and sides and miscellaneous accidents underground, and accidents from falls, form upwards of 40 per cent of the total deaths from casualties in mines."

Although the accidents from explosions have much more attention given to them in the country, it was found by these figures that the deaths from falls of roofs and sides were over 100 per cent more than the deaths caused by explosions. It was true that the country did not hear so much about these deaths from falls. So much gloom was not thrown by them over a large neighbourhood. But the Angel of Death was, nevertheless, meeting their fellow-men underground and claiming his victims. It might be a death here and there to-day, or two or three elsewhere to-morrow. But one after one, day after day, the total amount of deaths from falls reached above 100 per cent more than the deaths from explosions. Hence that was a point which the miners were exceedingly anxious to have put in the Bill. The miners anticipated with some confidence that future legislation should be based, in the first place, on the Report of the Mines Commission, and, in the second place, upon the suggestions thrown out by practical experience, which combined in recommending that no inexperienced person should be allowed to have a working place under his care, or to work alone in any dangerous part of the mine, without, first, having been under apprenticeship to some experienced and practical miner for some time. This was no new thing. He was glad to say that the special rules agreed upon by the employers and workmen of the Monmouth and South Wales district provided that no unskilled or inexperienced or careless person should work alone, or at any operations in which there was risk. Although that rule had been inserted in the special rules, yet practically it might as well not be there at all. What the miners asked was that there should be inserted in the Bill something similar to that rule, and that there should be some security for its being carried out efficiently. They believed that if that were done it would be the means of reducing the sad and great percentage of deaths from falls of roofs and sides. In the public mind, the occupation of a miner had too often and too long been thought something similar to the carrying out of an agricultural occupation, or the pushing of a wheelbarrow. But there was no greater mistake than to suppose that a man strong in limb, however defective in mind, could follow, as it should be followed, the occupation of a miner. Still, it was found that men were taken from the plough, from the forge, from the last, from everywhere, and were sent into collieries and made colliers, altogether irrespective of the vast danger arising from that practice. Then there was another point. They were told by the Commission that as yet they had no lamp worthy of the name of a safety lamp. It was to be regretted that they should have to acknowledge that failure. But the Commission itself admitted that there was no lamp worthy the name of a safety lamp. What were they, then? Lamps of danger. Then the Home Secretary would pardon him if he pushed further a point urged by the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt). If the Government did not feel able to say what lamp should be used, still there were a number of lamps admitted to be unsafe. Let the Government say that those lamps should not be used. Let the miners have that much protection from the Bill. He desired to press that point in the hope that something might be done in the case of lamps, and something also done to secure the practical training of men who carried their lives in their hands. It should, however, be borne in mind that a miner who was inexperienced or unskilful not only endangered his own life in this matter, but that he also endangered the lives of a host of his fellow-creatures. The House would agree with him that that state of things should be put an end to, and that it should be made impossible that any unpractised or unskilful man should be placed in such a position that from his want of knowledge of what he was doing the lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of his fellow-men should be at his mercy. Even yet he hoped that something would be done on this point. On the other question to which be had referred, he was glad to find that there was so much unanimity amongst hon. Members that he need say nothing. As to the engagement of women in mines, he would not enter on that point that day. But he hoped that there would be a full and fair discussion on it some other day. Whether this Government or any other Government interfered, whether they put a stop to the employment of women or not, women's labour about mines was doomed. A few years hence there would be no more of it. Humane feeling was against it, and before long—it would not be many years—the public feeling would say that women, the angels of humanity, should not be allowed to be employed about mines, amongst the grease and the coal dust and other disagreeable surroundings to be found there.

As this debate seems likely to last a little time before going into Committee, I should like to say a few words as to the position which South Staffordshire will occupy under its provisions; and the more especially that, while this Bill is, to a certain extent, based on the recent Report of the Royal Commission, no Representative in any shape or way of South Staffordshire was upon that Commission, and the only person who attended before it as a witness was a gentleman who managed one of the few pits on South Staffordshire principles; and although South Staffordshire is not now one of the largest mining districts, yet as it still affords employment to some 25,000 colliers, and those colliers afford employment to double that number of artizans, I venture to think the views and wishes of South Staffordshire are entitled to some consideration. Now, I am not very clear you can deal with South Staffordshire upon the hard-and-fast lines of an Act of Parliament, so widely does it differ from every other district, not merely in the natural formation of its coal, but also in its ways and customs of mining; and what is perfectly possible to be done in the large collieries of the North of England and South Wales it is perfectly impossible to do in the small ten-yard coal collieries of South Staffordshire, some of which are literally not a dozen acres in extent, and if I wanted an illustration of this I should find it in the speech last night of the hon. Member for Mid Lanarkshire (Mr. Mason), who appeared to plume himself on having given Notice of an Amendment that every shaft should be 50 yards apart. Well, I know nothing about Lanarkshire mining, and the Amendment in question may be suited to Lanarkshire; but all I can say is that it is one totally impracticable in South Staffordshire. But, undoubtedly, almost the only portion of the Bill that is new does go to the very root of the existing system of the South Staffordshire mining. I mean the restriction upon the powers and position of the contractor. Now, I do not profess myself to be very much in love with the contracting system, and I am afraid the contractor has very few friends; but, nevertheless, the contracting system is the keystone of South Staffordshire mining, and there is barely a colliery that is not in some way or another worked on the contract system. A larger proportion of the South Staffordshire collieries are probably still worked on the butty colliery system, as it is termed, which consists of a man, who invariably in his youth has been a practical collier and has got on in the world, contracting to raise the coal at so much per ton, he providing the horses and the timber—everything, in short, connected with the mine except the rails and machinery. This man is always a practical miner; he is constantly in the mine; and he has hitherto performed those duties which, under the provisions of this Bill, will now devolve upon the second-class manager, who will have to be appointed and sent into the mine by the proprietor of the colliery. You will thus have practically two managers in a small 20-acre colliery. On the one hand, you will have the butty collier, with all the power, but with no respon- sibility; and, on the other hand, you will have the second-class manager, with all the responsibility, but with no power; for it requires no gift of foresight to foresee that the chances are that if the second-class manager does attempt to interfere in the management, his interference will be resented by the butty, and there will be friction and collision between the two, and in that state of things I venture to think the second will be worse than the first. You may say why not do away with the butty system; but the difficulty is that contracts with butties are entered into to extend over a considerable term; and although no man in his senses would probably think of opening a virgin mine on the butty system, it is probably, after all, the one best suited to the small broken mines as they now exist, one test of which is that it has stood the experience of a century; and, in fact, you cannot, by the stroke of a pen in an Act of Parliament, alter the ways and customs of a people. As an illustration of that, I may state that while nothing can be more peremptory than the Act of 1872 in requiring all miners to be paid by weight, and not by measure, that clause and all its penalties is, by common consent, treated in South Staffordshire as a dead letter, and every pikeman of the 25,000 colliers is paid by measure, and not by weight. Now, I do not think it is desirable for Parliament to pass enactments, and to impose penalties for noncompliance with those enactments, and yet for those enactments to be so unsuitable to the district to which they are proposed to be applied that there is no alternative but to treat them as a dead letter, and the only way to obviate this appears to me to be to give to the Home Secretary wide dispensing powers, enabling him to exempt particular districts from the operation of the particular clauses of the Bill, when it is clearly brought home to him, alike by master and by men, that the clause in question is unsuited to the wants and requirements of the district. I know that this view is not shared by some hon. Members who take an interest in the subject; but I believe the more this Bill is discussed in Committee, and the more the variations in different districts are brought forward, the more will this view impress itself on the Government and the majority of hon. Members. Is is with the object of expressing this view that I have risen to make these few remarks.

said, that he had not expected that the second reading of this measure would have been proposed at a quarter to 6 o'clock on a Wednesday afternoon, when it was impossible that there could be a second reading debate upon it. He was afraid that the importance of this measure was scarcely sufficiently appreciated in the country, and even the Home Secretary did not manifest much knowledge of the facts relating to it. The number of persons employed in connection with mines in this country was 600,000. Seven out of every eight of these were employed in the coal mines, and four out of every five underground. The quantity of minerals raised annually was between 150,000,000 and 200,000,000 tons. Every 150,000 tons of that enormous quantity represented a human life lost, very often by causes which were preventible. The Juggernaut of selfish mismanagement exacted a tribute of human life and limb at a rate which exceeded 25 for every week the whole year round. These accidents were not the result of sudden and therefore presumably unavoidable explosions, but generally of carelessness and selfishness on the part of the colliery owners. For every fatal explosion they had four fatal accidents from falls of sides, no less than 13 fatal accidents from falls of roofs, two or three accidents in shafts, and at least half-a-dozen fatal accidents of what in the Returns were called miscellaneous kinds. The men who knew and witnessed and dreaded these things had for years been asking, through their Representatives, that some reasonable protection should be afforded them. Inasmuch as they were not in a position to enter into contracts with their employers upon equal terms, the State was bound to interfere for their protection. He thought it was a great pity that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had not taken this opportunity of dealing with the subject in a large, bold, and comprehensive manner. The right hon. Gentleman even appeared to regard this debate as unnecessary, but he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman was likely to apply the closure to it. There were those who advocated the establishment of a Minister of Mines, and that would not be an entirely novel proposal, for under the law of Scotland in old days—which was in favour of the miners—there used to be, if not a Minister of Mines, a Master of Minerals. But if a Minister of Mines was not to be established, as some advocated, it was only reasonable to ask that there should be a strengthening of the administrative staff under the Home Office. In connection with this immense industry they had under the Home Secretary a handful of men, eminently qualified no doubt, and zealous, but altogether insufficient for their work, and the amount of money spent upon this staff did not exceed the amount expended on Broadmoor Lunatic Asylum, and was not a third of what was annually spent on the Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade. This Bill copied almost textually as regarded nine-tenths of it the timid measure of the late Home Secretary, and that timid measure followed feebly the lines of the Act of 1872. His view was that it was altogether a mistake to hope to embody in an Act of Parliament any scheme of general rules which should be capable of practical application in all districts of the Kingdom. There were 3,000 mines in this country, and they varied so much in their situation, in their character, in the formation of their strata, and in the conditions and traditions of their working, that the engineers and mining managers of one district would not be fit to draw up rules for another. Instead, then, of the hopeless attempt to draw general rules for universal application, he would suggest the establishment of mining districts in each of which there should be a local authority, who should have power to supervise the working of the mines in that district, and to see that no one was placed in a position of responsibility who was not able to discharge the duties with which he was entrusted; that the machinery in every case was in working order; that the ventilation was as complete as the circumstances of the mine would admit; and, most important of all, that the working faces—and this was an important point—should be regularly inspected and very carefully watched, and timber always kept in near proximity for shoring. The working faces were the chief sources of danger. Every cut of coal brought new peril, and the safety of the day was no security that the work of to-morrow would not be full of danger. While the Bill attempted by means of general rules to provide for many things to which it was hopeless that general rules should be applicable, there were many points affecting the protection of the workmen for which no provision, was made. Every man in whose hands were placed the safety and the lives of others should be proved by a competent authority as qualified to discharge the duties entrusted to his care. This timid Bill did not go at all far enough in that direction. There should also be provision made that no man should be employed at a working face or place of danger after he had reached a certain age, if he had not had training as a boy or youth. The managers had a great deal more to do than they could possibly attend to. He certainly thought that some provision should be inserted in the Bill to secure that no man should have under his management pits which were clearly beyond what he could reasonably and efficiently control. As to the use of gunpowder in fiery mines, it was so serious a matter that the Government would do well to consider whether they should not prohibit it altogether. But if an owner or body of owners were willing to expose the lives of their workmen to the very serious danger arising from shots of gunpowder in fiery mines, they should, at any rate, share the danger; and he would move an Amendment which would provide that where-ever gunpowder was used in fiery mines it should not be used except in the presence of one of the owners or the manager or agent. In his opinion, no manager and nobody in authority ought to be paid a premium or percentage upon the output, because under such a system the pecuniary interest of the official was in conflict with his duty, and the salary of the manager or his deputy was increased at the expense of the safety of the mine. The power given by the Bill to workmen to inspect the mine was a mere mockery. If any two men on behalf of their fellow-men ventured to avail themselves of this power, it was well known that they would not do it a second time, as they would find that they were not wanted afterwards. The men nominated ought to be of the miners' own choosing, but not to be dependent on the owner in any way, and this should be the case whether a man was to act as an inspector or check- weigher in the interest of miners. As to the official inspection of the mines, he asked the Government whether it was unreasonable that a fiery mine should be inspected at least once a month, or that steps should be taken to secure that the men should know when the Inspector was on the spot? In Wales the Inspectors should be able to speak Welsh. With regard to the employment of boys, he was sorry to see that a youth over 12 years of age and under 13 might be employed for a larger number of hours underground than overground. This was an extraordinary proposal; and he hoped that it was a mistake made in drafting the Bill. He would only add, in conclusion, that in Scotland there was no system of Coroners' inquests, and he said that the Scotch were themselves desirous that there should be an open inquiry of some kind corresponding with the Coroner's inquest in England. Accidents often took place; some kind of inquiry was held; but it was not of a satisfactory character. He had accordingly put an Amendment on the Paper to the effect that the Sheriff should be empowered to hold an inquest in Scotland similar to the Coroner's inquest in England, and he hoped the Government would see their way to adopt it.

said, that, as a colliery owner, he was opposed to the employment of women on pit banks, and in Committee he would state his reasons. He was likewise opposed to the clause which allowed boys of 10 years of age to work in mines. He knew it was argued that it was well for lads who were intended for colliers that they should become accustomed to the work when young; but he felt that 10 was too tender an age at which they should be permitted to commence work in a mine. With regard to the check-weighmen, he was in hopes the arrangement come to between the owners and the representatives of the workmen would be adopted by the Government, because it was very necessary that the workmen should be protected in every possible way by a check-weighman in checking the coal owners' weighing. He was satisfied there must be a greater provision of timber, and that it must be stored in places more accessible to the men. He thought the method and plan established in Northumberland and Dur- ham was the most desirable, and trusted it would be adopted in other coal mining districts. A most important point in the Bill, which might be practically de-described as a new departure, was the prohibition of the use of gunpowder in blasting in all dusty mines, and the adoption of several safeguards even in mines that were free from dust. The experience of accidents and the advance of scientific knowledge had shown that there was a danger from dust which was practically unknown in 1872. Both owners and men desired that every means which could be devised for increasing the safety of life should be employed, and he sincerely hoped that this Bill, when it passed into law, would contribute largely to that end.

said, he thought the House did well to approach a question of such importance as this one in a perfectly judicial and dispassionate spirit. The safety of the lives of a large number of their fellow-countrymen, who were pursuing a most hazardous occupation, was a subject which certainly deserved and should command the most earnest attention of the House of Commons. He had been interested in the discussion that day, and he submitted that, on the whole, it had been conducted in careful and measured language. But he took exception to the remarks with which the subject was introduced that day. It appeared to him that the hon. and learned Gentleman who opened the debate indulged in needless recriminations, and made sweeping allegations, altogether unsupported, against Gentlemen probably as anxious to do their duty as the hon. and learned Gentleman himself could be. Nothing was to be gained by those recriminations. The hon. and learned Gentleman would have the House to believe that a very large number of employers of labour were bent upon defrauding their workmen. He believed that was a perfectly unjustifiable allegation, and, having made it, the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to have been prepared to substantiate it. If employers who were capable of the conduct to which he referred did exist, it was the bounden duty of the hon. and learned Gentleman to give all the proof in his power, so that they might be held up to public reprobation. He (Mr. Yeo) was very glad to observe that the hon. Gen- tleman the Member for the Rhondda District (Mr. W. Abraham), who made a very interesting, able, and practical speech, did not confirm any such charges. He (Mr. Yeo) had had the honour of sitting on a Sliding Scale Committee for a good many years. That Committee took cognizance of a large number of collieries in Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire, and on it sat representatives of the workmen in equal number to that of colliery owners. In the whole of his experience he never before heard it said that employers were guilty of depriving men of their just earnings. He trusted, therefore, hon. Members would dismiss from their minds the idea that any such conduct was pursued to any large extent, if, indeed, to any extent at all. He had listened to the remarks of the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) with great pleasure. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the necessity of classifying collieries. It must be remembered that the conditions of collieries differed very greatly. There were what were called fiery mines, in which shot-firing would be a most perilous proceeding, and there were mines of an anthracitic quality. During a long series of years no explosion from shot-firing had taken place in an anthracitic mine, dusty though it was. If there was any danger of explosion from shot-firing in the latter class of mines, surely there would have been some example of it, because the miners were in the habit of firing two and three shots a day. He thought it would be a great mistake to impose upon anthracite mines the conditions imposed upon fiery ones. The fact was that there was a possibility of stopping explosions which might commend itself to the House, but would not commend itself to the colliers, and that was to stop the mines altogether. That was what the House would virtually do if they accepted the Bill as it now stood. In these anthracite collieries each man fired on the average two or three shots a day, and if the regulation were adopted that all men should be withdrawn from the mine before a shot was fired no work would be done at all. He would urge on the Government that collieries of that kind were in a totally different category from the ordinary mines. The Government ought to be largely guided by any suggestion made by the work- men and employers unitedly. When they found the men whose lives were in danger and the employers, who were also deeply interested in the safety of the mines, making a suggestion, the Government and the House ought to give it very favourable consideration. The hon. Member for East Donegal made one statement rather out of keeping with the rest of his speech when he insinuated that, although the men were allowed to appoint their own representatives to examine the mines, these men were never employed a second time if they reported unfavourably of the mine. That was a most unjustifiable observation, and he thought the hon. Gentleman, on consideration, would see that it was a mistaken opinion. Who were most interested, next to the men themselves, in mines being free from gas and in getting the most accurate report of the condition of the mine? Undoubtedly the employers and managers; and he must be a madman who would deliberately ignore the reports of the men or dismiss them because they gave a report that was unsatisfactory as regarded the condition of some portion of the mine. The question of timbering was a most important one, as a large proportion of the accidents occurring in mines from day to day arose from falls from the roof and from the sides. It had been supposed that from motives of petty economy some employers did not provide an adequate supply of timber; but he should be extremely surprised if any owner of a colliery permitted it to be worked without an ample supply of timber. At the same time, every facility ought to be given to the men to get the timber easily, without having to go up to the pit bank for it, to escape which trouble he frequently ran great risks, which he would not do if timber were stored close at hand. It was a good suggestion that the men should be educated in the proper use of timber, and one worthy of consideration. With regard to the employment of women, it was entirely a mistaken idea that capitalists and employers attached any importance to that question in its economic aspect. There was such a very small number of women employed throughout the country in connection with collieries as to practically render the matter unworthy of consideration from the capitalist point of view. But while he should be delighted if fields of employment were open to women of the humbler classes other than the pit bank, he must say he had seen women healthful and robust and safe in that occupation; and if they were his own relations he would rather see them occupied in that healthy though dirty avocation than in tinplate works or in factories where the conditions were much more prejudicial to health. But the real question was, were they to refuse to allow women opportunities of earning their livelihood? Were they to establish a precedent which would be appealed to hereafter by which women would be excluded from other kinds of employment? He himself was not prepared to support a proposal of that kind. He could not believe that the working men—who had been accused of desiring to get rid of cheap female labour in order that their own dearer labour might take its place—were really actuated by any such selfish motives. But that was not a miner's question; it ought to be considered on a wider basis—namely, should women be debarred from opportunities of earning their livelihood, whether in collieries, factories, or similar employments? He believed that the aim of that Bill was to secure the safety of a very deserving portion of the population; and he should be prepared to support any Amendments which would conduce to the greater security of the persons employed in mines. At the same time, he would object to any measures which, without giving such additional safety, would impose increased difficulties upon employers of labour, who, especially in these depressed times, had already great difficulties to contend with.

said, he would urge some of his Friends who were anxious to have this Bill passed into law to get it into Committee at once, as there was no Amendment to the second reading. With the exception of one speech, all those he had listened to were Committee speeches, and would be far better made on clauses. Those of them who had sat some time in the House knew that, as they had reached the 22nd of June, the time available for the Government, under any circumstances, to devote to matters of this kind was rapidly running out. They were having an interesting discussion on the various subjects, but he was afraid they were going a great way to endanger the Bill itself; and he would urge, therefore, on his hon. Friends who were anxious that it should pass into law that if they went into Committee at once they might make fair progress with the Bill. The Government had the Report of the Crimes Bill, the Land Bill, and much other Business; and unless progress was made with this Bill that day, he did not see how they were going to get it through this Session. He believed that there was nothing in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman opposite — the Home Secretary — which would prevent the fair consideration of the Amendments which might be proposed; and he thought that, as they were practically all agreed upon the principle of the measure, they could make their speeches with better effect in Committee on the clauses than in prolonging what was virtually a debate on the second reading.

said, he supported the appeal of the hon. Member. Representing, as he did, a population which might be said to be connected with the mining industry, he had to say that the people of the district were interested in the Bill, and desired it to be passed into law this Session. He hoped hon. Members opposite would accept the advice of the last speaker.

said, he had been requested to support the Amendments which were proposed by the agents and managers of the mines. It was erroneous to suppose that the miners and the managers were not greatly interested in the measure, and most anxious that it should be thoroughly debated in Committee and passed into law this Session.

Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Preliminary.

Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.

Part I

Employment of Boys, Girls, and Women.

Clause 4 (Employment below ground of boys under ten and of girls and women prohibited).

Mr. Courtney. I beg to move to leave out "ten," in line 20, and insert "twelve." The object of this Amendment is to prohibit the employment of any boys in mines under 12 years of age instead of 10 years. Even so far back as 1842 Lord Ashley, who was the great pioneer in the legislation affecting the employment of children in mines, inserted in his Bill a clause providing that boys under 13 years of age should be precluded from entering mines; and at that time the clause of the noble Lord was strongly supported by a large number of the Members of this House. The Act of 1872 generally prohibits the employment of boys under 12, but there is a power by order of the Secretary of State to make exceptions to that rule. At the present time there are only 311 boys under the age of 12 employed in mines, and 308 out of the 311 are employed in Lancashire and in Yorkshire. The reason that is urged for their employment is the thinness of the seams in those parts of the country. I do not think that there is a shadow of a foundation to say that there is any necessity in Lancashire and in Yorkshire that does not exist elsewhere for the employment of boys of such tender years. We have thin seams in other parts of the country, and we manage to have boy labour restricted to those above 12 years of age. Unless there is an overwhelming case made out for the employment of these young boys, I think it will be admitted by the House generally that on physical and moral grounds, on the ground of the desirability of boys having a chance of being developed physically, and of being properly educated, no boy under 12 years of age should be admitted to the mines. I can only say, in addition to the arguments I have already urged, that the Select Committee which sat from 1864 to 1867 strongly recommended that no boys under 12 years of age should be employed, and I think that a recommendation of that sort coming, as it did, from practical men, many of them large coal owners, should carry very great weight in this House. I beg to move the Amendment of which I have given Notice.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 20, to leave out the word "ten," and insert the word "twelve."—( Mr. Burt. )

Question proposed, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the Clause."

Mr. Courtney, this is a question on which, I admit, my own original opinion was similar to that of the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt). It seems to me that 12 years of age is a sufficiently early age for a boy to be employed about a mine; but hon. Members will observe that in the Bill which is now before them we are not altering the existing law. The law, as it at present stands, has been in force since 1872, and from the best inquiries I have made, I have not found that any inconvenience, any disadvantage, or any hardship has resulted from the employment of boys under 12 years of age. The numbers are small, I may almost say insignificant, for there are only 311 boys in the country whose case we have to deal with; and one naturally asks what there is in the circumstances of Lancashire and Yorkshire which should cause those two counties to employ boys under 12 years of age? As the hon. Member for Morpeth very truly observes, all but two or three of these boys are employed in those two counties. Now, I had the advantage recently of an interview with a deputation from Lancashire. The manager of the Low Moor Mine, a mine with which, no doubt, many hon. Members will be acquainted, who formed one of the deputation, assured me that altogether 1,700 hands were employed at Low Moor, and that in this number there were no less than 90 boys under 12 years of age; that is very nearly one-third of the total number of boys Under 12 employed in the whole country. This gentleman assured me also that the boys are perfectly healthy, strong in their limbs, and happy in their employment. He regards as a vital consequence to his colliery that they should be allowed to employ a boy as early as 10 years of age, and the reasons assigned were these. If you allow boys to reach the age of 12 before they can begin to learn the business of a collier, they are almost invariably drawn off to other employment. There are factories of all kinds which are competing for the work of young children, establishments in which the work is probably more agreeable than that under ground, and in which the remuneration is certainly not less. If a boy is not allowed to begin work about a mine as early as 10 years, the chances are he will not begin the colliery work at all. Not only are these boys healthy, but they make the best colliers afterwards. The work these boys are put to is to push trams with their heads. [ Cries of "Oh, oh!"] I am told that is the work they practically do. Perhaps I have not used the right word, and I ought to say that pushing of tubs in which coal is carried is the first work they are put to. Being employed thus early about the mine, they get habituated to the work, especially in the thin seam mines, forming, in the result, the best colliers. I think the hon. Member for Morpeth has forgotten that this does not touch the Education Act at all, and that these boys, when employed at this age, remain subject to all the provisions of that Act. They must comply with all the conditions of the Act as to attending school, and half-time, and the attaining of a certain Standard—they must comply with all the conditions of the Act, which certainly prevent them being unduly engrossed in colliery work. We think it is best, on the whole, not to alter the law, which has worked well hitherto, but to leave the question of the employment of boys of this age to be dealt with by special dispensation of the Secretary of State. I have always thought that where the existing law does not work hardship, it is unwise to alter it, and I think it would be best to adhere to the rule in this case, which, upon the whole, has given satisfaction.

Mr. Courtney, I rise to protest against the principle, which the right hon. Gentleman has put into his Bill, of employing boys of this tender age. It is a principle which, on social as well as on medical grounds, ought not to have the sanction of this House. I am astonished that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary—who represents one of the largest industrial constituencies in this country—should advocate a measure for employing boys of 10 years of age. We have in the Eastern Division of Birmingham a very large industrial population, and I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will find there among his constituents, a very strong feeling that the employment of children of tender years is not a principle which has the sanction of the working classes. But on medical grounds the employment of children of this age is exceeding injurious. We have in mines a very high mortality, especially from lung disease, and children entering mines are placed under conditions which will bring about the development of serious lung troubles, to which at their tender years they are more than usually liable in a grave form. I also think that the association of these children in the pits at this time of life with adult miners is not conducive to the general well-being of the population. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has defended his proposal on the ground that it is convenient. It was convenient a few years back for children to be put up chimneys, and it seems to me that the argument of convenience was equally applicable to the sweeping of chimneys by children. I maintain that the employment of children in pits is bad from a medical point of view, and bad from the point of view of their physical development. It is frequently the case that children so employed are stunted and lopsided. If these boys have only to push trams, surely on the ground of common humanity we ought to prohibit such employment, which is really that of a beast of burden. I hope the Committee will, on the ground of humanity, as well as on medical grounds, object to the continuance of the employment of children of this tender age. By the admission of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, this is a very small matter: it affects only 311 boys; but I protest against an important principle like this, although it affects so small a number of children receiving the sanction of this House.

I hope the Committee will allow me to say a few words upon this subject. I desire to do so, because I was in duty bound to take part in a discussion which occurred upon this subject in 1872. This question was discussed on the Committee stage, and also on the Report stage of the Coal Mines Bill, which was brought in in that year. My noble Friend, Lord Frederick Cavendish, whose loss we all so deeply lament, took exactly the same view on the subject that I did, and do now. We both represented the North-Western Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire, and the representations made to us on behalf of employers and employed were of such a character that we both felt bound to support the Bill then before Parliament, which contained a similar provision to this. At that time there were numerous Petitions signed by working men in favour of the emloyment of boys under 12 presented to Parliament. Petitions of the same class are now numerous; and although, perhaps, they will not be quite so numerous as they were in 1872, the diminution arises from the fact that the employment of boys is now less, because the trade is depressed. Nevertheless, in proportion to the number of boys employed, the number of Petitions is as great now as it was then. This is a question on which the working men and the employers are exactly of the same mind. The working men, who care as much for their children now as formerly, are anxious that the law should continue as it now exists. [ Cries of "No, no!"] I am speaking from information, I am not speaking rashly. It is not my habit to make statements in this House without the fullest information. Then comes the difficulty which was mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) as to the competition of other employment. In these districts there are factories scattered in large numbers over the country, and unless boys enter mines early they are tempted into other occupations and there is a difficulty to find people to work the mines. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ilkeston Division of Derby (Sir Walter Foster) has raised the question of health. I dare say that in a school of medicine arguments might be adduced on the ground of health against this proposal in the Bill, but the fact of the case is this that these boys are healthy boys. It is a matter of actual fact which is known by those acquainted with mining districts, and who know something of Low Moor, that these boys are above the average in point of health and strength. At the inquiry in 1872 there was a statement made by the manager of an industrial school as to the health of these boys. He said that the boys of this tender age employed in mines were as healthy and as strong as other boys of the same class. As to these lads being lopsided, I must confess that in my wanderings in the neighbourhood of Low Moor I did not see any lopsided people, on the contrary, no population can be more strong and vigorous. They give the best manifestation of their strength in their courage in the exercise of the athletic sports which are now so prevalent in the district. Then comes the next point to which I must refer, and that is the bad state of trade. We cannot deal with this question of labour or of capital as if everyone was blessed with abundant prosperity; on the contrary, we are struggling exceedingly against great difficulties at the present moment. Many of these thin seams are not worked because the expense of their working is such that they do not pay the expenses; but, if you interpose new difficulties and render the working of these mines still more expensive, you will not only throw out of use many mines, but you will postpone the time when many mines, which are not now being worked, will be again put into activity. These restrictions are not a boon to the working men, but an injury to them, because they deprive the working classes of the opportunity of gaining a livelihood by this particular industry. Then comes another point alluded to by the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt), the question of the education of these children. Now, one of the reforms introduced by the Government in this Bill in respect to education is, in my opinion, a very wise reform. The education of the chilren will be left in future entirely under the authority of the Education Acts. I have made inquiries in this district respecting education, and I find the custom is that the boys should go to school five out of ten school days. They attend school in one week two days and in the alternative week three days, they are half-timers, but they devote one whole day to school and the whole other day to work. If they were not labouring on this system but on the half-time system in factories, they would be working under circumstances less favourable to health—namely, half-day in school and the other half-day at work. There is now a standard before a boy can work half-time, and I may remind the Committee that that standard has been raised. I think I may fairly claim that the general law does make provisions for the education of these children, they are not permitted to work in these thin seams unless they have complied with that general law, and I think that we may fairly leave the education of these children to the Education Acts. I may be permitted to make one other observation before resuming my seat. I do hope that these sections, with reference to the employment of the work people, respecting the age of the people, respecting the times of employment and the intervals for meals, will be allowed to continue unaltered. An hon. Friend of mine has several Amendments on the Paper with which I shall not be able to agree. I do not want any retrograde step. I think it is better that the law should stand as it now exists, and that we should consider this controversy as closed, and should deal with the other and most important provisions of the Bill. May I remind the Committee of the exact words of the Bill as it now stands? The only circumstances under which these boys can be allowed to work is that by reason of the thinness of the seam—

The hon. Member is now referring to the next clause, not to this clause.

No, no, Sir; I submit that I am in Order. I am stating the circumstances under which these children can be allowed to work according to the Bill. In doing that, I am obliged to explain that the Bill says that these boys can only be allowed to work if the Secretary of State is convinced that the seams render their employment necessary. If the Secretary of State does not find that case made out then he refuses his order. This gives a large discretion to the Secretary of State, and I am perfectly certain that in these days no Secretary of State will allow children to be employed unless the case is proved to his satisfaction.

May I point out that at one time the number of boys employed in mines was 919, and the number has now fallen to 311. I admit that possibly that fall may be, to a certain extent, caused by the depression of trade; but I cannot admit that the whole of that fall is so accounted for. The fact is, I believe, that by a better system of working it is possible to work some of these thin seams without calling in the assistance of boys of between 10 and 12 years of age, and if that is so, I feel that the House ought to agree to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt).

My hon. Friend the Mem- ber for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell) has made a very lengthy speech in order to keep at work 311 boys of tender age. Now, out of 423,862 men and boys employed in the mines of this country, there are only 311 boys between 10 and 12 years of age. Perhaps a few facts may be worth a great many arguments. I am one of those interested in a district where there are a number of very thin seams, and many years ago most of the coal owners in that district agreed that they would not employ boys under 12 years of age. We found no difficulty in working the mines without boys under 12; many of us have gone a good step further, and for many years past a great many of our mines have had no boys whatever in them under 13 years of age. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) would have gone rather too far if he had suggested 13 years of age instead of 12; but from practical experience in the matter I should have found great difficulty in not voting with him if he had. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rhondda Valley Division of Glamorganshire (Mr. William Abraham) has said that what we want is safety. No doubt, that is so, and I ask how is safety to be best attained? I think it will be best attained by having a well taught population. In some of the mining districts we have now a well-taught population. I know mines in which several, and I believe all, the deputies or timber setters have received certificates of proficiency in mining from South Kensington. If boys are kept at school until they find the value of learning, they continue their studies after they leave school, and thus make themselves valuable men in mines. Let us consider for a moment what our own boys are at 10 years of age, and whether we should consider them fit to be put to such employment as these young lads are put to. I believe the safety of our mines is to be found in having a thoroughly well-taught mining population, and in order to afford boys an opportunity of obtaining a proper education, I shall support the Amendment before the Committee.

As the Representative of a very large mining population in South Staffordshire, I desire to say a few words in reference to the Amendment before the Committee. I trust that after the re- marks addressed to the Committee by preceding speakers the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) will see his way to accept the Amendment. If I had any doubts before hearing the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary as to whether there was any necessity for retaining, or advantage in retaining, the present provision, those doubts would have been entirely dissipated when I heard that out of the great mining population we have in this country only 311 boys under the age of 12 years are employed in mines. Surely there can be no necessity for any such law as this. The physical advantage of the change to the rising generation apart from the advantage which these boys will gain in attending school will be enormous. It is upon these grounds I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment. I have been in constant communication with the representatives of the miners in South Staffordshire, and I know that the feeling is very strong among them that the age of the boys should be changed from 10 to 12 years.

I look upon this question as a practical one, and not one upon which we must take a sentimental view. I shall certainly support the Amendment, because, apart from the question of the unhealthiness of the occupation for boys of such years, I consider that boys of so tender an age are quite unfit to take care of themselves. I have considered the question well, and having consulted with the owners and managers in my own district, I think that the Amendment ought to be accepted.

I should be glad if the Committee will bear with me while I say a few words upon this question. I feel that the Committee is likely, from the best motives, to be led into a grave error. Let me say at the outset that if I believed the cause of humanity was at stake in this matter, I should be the last person to oppose the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt). I agree with the hon. Gentleman when, speaking upon an earlier stage, he said—"You cannot force on a district wages and a system that are not acceptable either to employer or workmen." Now, in 1885, I had the honour of con- testing a Division of Yorkshire in which these thin seams principally exist, and I also have had practical experience of the matter, because I have been shown some of the thin seam mines, and I am acquainted with a business which is largely connected with those thin seams. I feel certain, therefore, that if the Committee disagree with me, they will, at least, bear with me in what I have to say. In the first instance, I ask the Committee to consider what the position of the trade in the North West Riding of Yorkshire and in the Southern Districts of Staffordshire is at the present moment. This exception to the general law was introduced, I believe, after the Report of the Mines Commission for good and sufficient reasons. Now, the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Handsworth Division of Staffordshire (Mr. Wiggin) has dwelt a great deal on the fact that it has been shown by a Return presented to the House that only 311 boys under 12 years of age are now employed in mines. That I admit is an argument which seems to appeal very largely to the House of Commons; but I ask hon. Members to remember that this thin seam industry is a very small industry, and that it is, at this present moment, a very depressed industry. The thin seam coal miners only exist in a very limited area, and they deal with a very special trade. Practically, they deal with what is known as the best Yorkshire iron trade, which is itself very greatly depressed. Now, two questions have been principally urged by those who support the Amendment—the questions of health and of education. As regards the question of health, I ask hon. Members to look at it from a practical point of view. If they do, I believe they can show no single instance of a healthier population than exist at the present moment in the Yorkshire iron mine district. With regard to the employment of 311 boys under the age of 12, I ask the House to remember that, although that is true, yet out of the total number of boys who are now engaged in mines, 90 per cent commenced work at the tender age of 10—[ Cries of "No, no!"]—I am speaking of what I know. I am speaking with practical knowledge of this matter. I was present the other day at the reception of a large deputation of miners, and I received from the Members of the deputation assurance that more than 90 per cent of the total number of boys employed in mines began work between the ages of 10 and 12. Now, with regard to the question of education, I ask the Committee to remember that at this present moment the half-time system is in operation, and that boys who are half-timers can go into other employment if they do not go into mines when they have passed a particular standard. I know the practical difficulty is not a small difficulty of getting boys sufficient to do this work, and of educating them for this special work in mines; but I know also that there is this difficulty that unless you do get them to go into the mines at the early age of 10, owing to the extreme depression of trade they will go into some other employment where they can earn something; they will not continue to pursue their education in the schools, but they will go into some factory or some offices, and it becomes impossible then to obtain them for the collieries. I am grateful to the Committee for having listened to me so patiently—I will only refer to one other point. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth spoke of the importance of having carefully trained colliers. Now, I ask him to look at the matter in the light of the Report of the Inspectors of Mines, one of whom, certainly, has, in his Report, drawn attention to the importance of having those who are engaged in this dangerous and difficult trade early educated with regard to the business which they have to carry on. This is not in reference to education generally, but to education in the management of mines, and in the carrying on of the particular trades which they have to follow throughout their lives. I hope I have made my point clear to the Committee. I do not believe that this is unhealthy employment for these boys, and upon this point I confidentlly appeal to all those who have practical experience of the working of mines. I should have been glad if, when he had an opportunity of seeing some of the pit-brow girls the other day, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had had an opportunity of seeing some of the Yorkshire lads who have been brought up in the pits, because I know he would then have readily admitted that in the matter of health they contrast most favourably with those who are following sedentary occupations in London. Let me impress upon the Committee the necessity of being careful and guarded before they put any further restrictions upon labour. God knows that times have been very hard, and that the earning of wages has been difficult. These young hands and young arms have done something towards supporting their parents and relatives, and therefore I ask those who have no practical knowledge on the subject to consider, at least, carefully what I have said. I earnestly urge the Government not to be led away by a sentimental or a humanitarian outcry, and thereby do that which will be highly detrimental to an important industry and of no advantage to those in whose behalf the change is sought.

Mr. Courtney, I listened with considerable surprise to the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. A. E. Gathorne-Hardy), who has done his best to persuade the Committee to continue the employment underground of boys between the ages of 10 and 12. One of the arguments of the hon. Gentleman appears to me to weaken instead of strengthen his case. He says that in the district to which he referred, of all the boys over the age of 12 who were now employed in the mines, 90 per cent had worked in the pits before they were twelve years of age. That shows clearly that the boys in that particular district are practically receiving little or no advantage in the way of education after 10 years of age. Then the hon. Gentleman went on to allude to the fact that the boys under 12 who are now employed are half-timers. If you take the 311 boys as half-timers, that simply represents 155½ boys who are working full time, and, consequently, it seems that the clause in the Bill allowing the lads to be employed at 10 has been permitted to remain owing to pressure put upon the Government by one or two companies who are specially interested. But there is another view of the case which has not been put before the Committee, and that is, that when we consider that there are in the country only equal to 155½ boys employed full time, is this not a favourable opportunity for increasing the age at which boys should be employed to 12. We have no guarantee that the present state of things as to the small number of boys employed will con- tinue. It is quite possible that thin seams may be worked in other parts of the country, and that other employers in other districts may be induced to employ boys at a tender age. Consequently, I think advantage should be taken of the opportunity now afforded of limiting the age at which boys should be employed to 12. I can fully bear out what the hon. Baronet the Member for the Barnard Castle Division of Durham (Sir Joseph Pease) has said with regard to the employment of boys in the County of Durham. I, like the hon. Baronet, am largely interested in the coal trade, and I am glad to say that almost entirely in the counties of Durham and Northumberland no boys are now employed under 13 years of age. We believe that it is to the ultimate advantage of colliery proprietors that that should be the case, because, if the boys are well educated and properly developed before they are employed in the pits, they are of much more service to their masters. I hope that if the Government will not accept the Amendment, a Division will be taken, so that it may be seen who are in favour of legislation for a particular class. I believe that employers generally are strongly opposed to the employment underground of boys under 12 years.

The arguments used by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell) appear to me to go a great deal too far. As I understand him, he contended that the Amendment could not be accepted without great injury to the trade, which is already depressed. If that were so—and I think we shall succeed in showing the Committee that it is not so at all—the argument of the hon. Gentleman would be conclusive. You have 311 boys half-time, and the allegation is that important mining industries will be neglected because of the loss of profit that will accrue because of the non-employment of 155 boys and 50 per cent of another boy. The thing is so monstrous that I am afraid I misunderstood the argument of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wigan.

My argument was this—that the present depressed state of trade has caused a good many of these mines to lie idle. The present number of boys employed is very small no doubt; but when the trade revives the number will be greatly increased. I argue that, with the revival of trade, other thin seam mines may be opened up entailing a greater employment of boys.

I quite misunderstood the hon. Member for Wigan. I thought he said that many of these thin seam mines would be thrown out. I am glad I misunderstood him. I understand him now that no injury will be done to the mines already at work. He suggests, however, that other thin seams will be prevented from working; but that does not fit in with the facts of the case. The facts are that instead of a larger number of boys of tender years being employed now than formerly, the number has, as we have heard from the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnard Castle (Sir Joseph Pease), been greatly reduced. I trust the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary—after the statement made by the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. Llewellyn), and the statements made before you, Mr. Courtney, left the Chair by hon. Gentlemen intimately acquainted with the coal mining districts of Durham—will not persist in resisting this Amendment. We much prefer the right hon. and learned Home Secretary in his original mood—he tells us he was in favour of limiting the age to 12; but he did not tell us what were the reasons—I have no doubt they were good ones—why he approved of the Amendment. I conceive it must have been because that it was really destructive of the health of little children to be placed in mines at so early an age. An hon. Member opposite has appealed to us not to speak without practical experience. I have not practical experience of coal mines, but I have 25 years' practical experience of the class of the population to which our miners belong. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary has said he has been waited upon not by any lads, but by a deputation of people interested, among whom was the manager of the establishment employing one-third of the whole of the boys employed under 12 years of age, and that this manager assured him that these boys are remarkably healthy, and like their employment. That is a class of argument always used in favour of the employment of boys of tender years. Now, I say, without fear of contradiction, that to employ in hard labour of this kind under conditions of temperature such as they have to encounter, children of tender years, stunts them, whatever else it does. I have seen and conversed with stunted men who have told me that they were driven into the pits in early life, and that they have always agitated in favour of children of tender years not being employed in pits. If, as we are told, there are only 311 boys under 12 years of age employed in mines, and that 308 are employed in Lancashire and Yorkshire, I do not understand what interest Staffordshire—to which the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. A. E. Gathorne-Hardy) referred—has in this matter.

I spoke of Lancashire and Yorkshire, if I mentioned Staffordshire I did not intend to do so.

Wherever you find children of this tender age have been employed—I refer especially to the Wigan district—you find a lower class of the population, a population with more brutal habits than you do anywhere else. I sincerely appeal to the Committee to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt).

As a Representative of that part of Lancashire which includes part of the thin seam district, I desire to say that the men, as well as the masters, are most anxious that this Amendment should not be adopted. I wish to point out further that those who raise the humanitarian or sentimental cry of injury to the children go a little too far, because all they have said about the employment of children between 10 and 12 can be urged against the employment of children above that age. The physical education of a miner in his business is of great importance. Before a man is worth his wages in a thin seam mine, he must be educated, and in order to educate him, you must catch him young. If you do not catch boys at 10 years of age they are drawn into other occupations which are just as unhealthy as this, even if this occupation is unhealthy. The hon. Baronet the Member for Barnard Castle (Sir Joseph Pease) spoke of Durham, and said that many employers refused to employ children under 13 years of age, but there are none of these thin seam mines in his district. [ Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Well, not of any great extent. It is considered a matter of vital importance to the successful working of thin seamed mines in North-East Lancashire and Yorkshire that hoys of this age should be allowed to be employed. I sincerely hope the Committee will approve of the Bill as it now stands in this respect.

I should like to point out to the Committee a fact that has not as yet been noticed, and that is that all boys employed in the factories of the United Kingdom must be 13 years of age—no boy is allowed to enter a factory as a full timer until he has attained the age of 13 years. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ilkeston Division of Derbyshire (Sir Walter Foster) has referred to the physical powers of these children. All medical men, certainly 99 out of every 100, will admit that it is physically detrimental to children under 12 years of age that they should be employed in mines. I hope that after the discussion upon this Amendment the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary will come to the conclusion that it is unnecessary and unwise to continue this exceptional legislation for the benefit of 311 boys.

I should like to say a word or two on this subject. So far as the district of Lancashire in which I am interested is concerned, this is not an important matter. We have thin seams and thick seams; but the thin seams can be worked under the ordinary conditions. I understand, however, that there are thin seams which cannot be worked unless the people working them have worked them from a very early age. Objection has been taken to the employment of boys under 12 years of age, on the ground of education. But it must not be forgotten that these boys are subject to the provisions of the Education Act. They cannot be employed unless they obtain a certain Standard, and they are subject to the half time system. This is not a question between employer and employed; it is a question on which employer and employed are on the same side. It may become impossible for the employers to continue the working of these mines. Is the House prepared to put the proprietors of thin seam mines under condi- tions which both employers and employed say will render it impossible for them to carry on their business? If they do, will they take measures to relieve lessees from the obligation of working their mines? They are under that obligation according to the existing state of the law; but you are going to alter the law so as, as they say, to make it impossible for them to carry on their business. [ Cries of "Divide!" and "Question!"] This is the question, but it is plain to see that the Committee is against the interests of these lessees. However, I would urge hon. Members not to act against the wishes of employers and employed alike, testified over and over again by Petitions.

I merely wish to say one word. In the district of Cheshire which I represent we work these thin seams of coal, and we are not allowed to send boys under 12 years of age into the pits. I maintain that if that system can be adopted in our district, it can be adopted in other districts. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will accept the Amendment.

I do not know whether I may not be able to save time. This is clearly a matter that only interests a small part of the mining industry—namely, the thick seam mines of Lancashire and Yorkshire. So far as I have been able to discover, the employers and workmen of these districts are unanimously in favour of the employment of boys. The right hon. Gentleman opposite the late Home Secretary (Mr. Childers) and the hon. Member for West Nottingham near him (Mr. Broadhurst) last year kept the same ages in their Bill, and the Commissioners reported in favour of keeping the ages as they were. There seems to me a concensus of opinion in favour of the clause as it stands, except so far as the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) who moves this Amendment is concerned, and even he, it must be remembered, signed the Report which stated that—

"The importance of encouraging boys to enter the mines at the ages specified in the Mines Regulation Act so as to be thoroughly trained by pitmen experienced in the working of the mines cannot be over estimated."

I think there is a strong concurrence of authority in favour of maintaining the ages as they stand in the Bill; but if there is a general feeling in the Committee in favour of the Amendment I should be glad to accept it. I should be sorry to see injustice done to special districts where unusual methods of working are found necessary, but it is for the Committee to decide the point.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Matthews) has appealed to me, and though I had not intended to take part in the debate, after that appeal I feel bound to say a word. This was one of the clauses with which we had the greatest difficulty last year. I took very great interest in it, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst) paid considerable attention to the matter. At that time I certainly came to the conclusion that it was not necessary to disturb the former Acts, but it is evident that from that time the number of those who would be affected by the change has been considerably falling off. After balancing the opinions on both sides so well explained by the Home Secretary, I think the Committee could with perfect safety now fix the age at 12 years. Therefore, as I have been appealed to, and as the position has been so fairly placed before the Committee by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State, I hope the Committee will adopt the 12 years.

After the observations that have fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers), who was himself responsible for the introduction of this provision in the Bill of last year, I think the Committee would be justified in accepting the Amendment. There is no doubt a general feeling throughout the country that the children who are employed in mines should not be so young as 10 years; therefore, on behalf of the Government, we accept the proposal with the very sincere hope that it will not inflict serious hardship on those mining industries which now employ children under 12 years of age.

Question put.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 7; Noes 262: Majority 255.—(Div. List, No. 253.) [4.10. P.M.]

Question, "That the word 'twelve' be there inserted," put and agreed to.

Question, "That Clause 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 5 (Employment below ground of boys between ten and twelve restricted).

Question proposed, "That Clause 5 stand part of the Bill."

There is an Amendment standing in my name, in line 23, to leave out "twelve," in order to insert "thirteen."

The Clause is to be omitted.

It will not be necessary for the hon. Member to move the Amendment.

I am perfectly satisfied.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause 6 (Hours of employment of boys over twelve below ground).

I beg to move in connection with this clause the Amendment which stands in my name—that is to say, in page 2, line 12, to leave out "fifty-four," in order to insert "forty-eight." It seems to me that 48 hours is quite enough for boys of from 12 to 16 years of age to be employed in working underground; and now that there is a general tendency towards reducing the hours of labour of boys of tender years, I think in this matter it will be beneficial to the country generally if boys whose constitution are not yet formed are not allowed to work in the pits and to breathe the bad air and coal dust for more than 48 hours in the week. There is a strong feeling in favour of reducing the hours of labour for adults—that is to say, in favour of reducing the hours from 54 to 48. In England, and in part of Scotland where accommodation exists, the hours have been reduced to seven hours a-day, or less than 54 hours in the week; but the boys are employed for longer hours than the men, because of the system of double shifts. I think it necessary to protect the boys from such a system as that; and I think they should not be sent to work longer hours than the men. It appears to me that it is necessary that legislation should step in, in order to protect boys under 16 years of age, who are not able to protect themselves. I beg to move that for "fifty-four" we should insert "forty-eight."

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 12, to leave out the words "fifty-four," and insert the words "forty-eight."—( Mr. Mason. )

Question proposed, "That the words 'fifty-four' stand part of the Clause."

I think the hon. Member who has moved this Amendment can hardly have considered what the effect of it will be. We have not thought it worth while to disturb those clauses which are inserted in the Coal Mines Act of 1872 more than is necessary; and the hon. Member must remember that since the Act of 1872 was passed the Education Act has come into operation, and this will prevent any boy from working anything like such a number of hours as 54, unless he has passed his Standards and got his certificate. Under the Act of 1876, supplementing the Act of 1870, the rules for the employment of children are extremely stringent, and, as I say, prevent any boy from working anything like that large number of hours. No boy who, from the age of 10 years and upwards, has not obtained such certificate of efficiency, or of attending as the Act requires, can be employed at all or can be taken into any person's employment. The effect of these educational regulations is that boys of 12 years of age and upwards, who are employed underground, cannot, unless they are boys of exceptional ability and precocity, be employed anything like the number of hours mentioned in the clause. I do not say that boys of 12 or thereabouts cannot qualify themselves to work as full-timers. Of course, there are some boys of exceptional ability, who make remarkable, almost phenomenal, progress; but those cases would be very special ones; and I do not see why in such cases boys, who can distinguish themselves in that way, should not be allowed to work full time, and earn full wages, but in 99 cases out of 100, or in even a larger proportion of cases, the Education Act would, as I say, pre- vent boys working anything like the number of hours mentioned in this clause. I have never heard of those clauses as to the number of hours boys shall work under the Coal Mines Act of 1872 working hardship, or causing grievance in any way. For that reason, I thought it unwise to disturb the existing state of things, and I thought it desirable to leave the clause as it stood. I have never heard of any grievance existing by reason of this clause being in the Act; therefore, I hope the hon. Member opposite will not persist in his Amendment. If you lower the hours in the case of boys, it may be necessary, in the mines, to lower them in the case of other people; and I do not think that by legislation of this kind, which will go to hamper the management in fixing the hours of labour, that you will benefit either men or employers.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has sought to defend himself against the Amendment of the hon. Member by pointing out that, in the case of boys who have not passed the Standard, they will be sufficiently protected by the operation of the Education Act. But he has not sought to show that those boys of 12 years of age, who have passed the Standards, will be exempt from working the large number of hours that the hon. Member (Mr. Mason) objects to. In fact, he admits it in the case of boys who have passed the Standards, and have consequently shown a greater fitness and greater adaptability for other work than that which can be found at the bottom of the coal pit. These boys are not to be protected by law; whereas others who have not made so much progress in school are protected not by any provision in any Act dealing with mines, but by an enactment concerning education. Now, Sir, the Legislature has interfered repeatedly on behalf of young persons up to the age, I think, of 15, and on behalf of women. It has interfered repeatedly, and has limited their freedom of action on the ground that they are not free agents, and that they are unable to protect themselves. Boys of the age of 12 cannot refuse to go into a coal pit, if they are ordered to do so by their parents; and they cannot refuse if they are ordered to work there more than eight hours a-day; consequently they are not free agents. They are in my judgment—and I hope it will be found in the judgment of the Legislature—entitled to special protection; they stand in the same category that children and women do under the Factory Acts. The Legislature has distinctly, by enactment, over and over again, provided that such persons shall have special protection, and that they shall not be left to the ordinary operations of supply and demand. But the converse is the case with respect to boys employed in coal pits. It is not the custom for any grown man to work more than eight hours a-day. They are not protected by the Legislature; but they simply refuse to do it. No miner will work for more than eight hours in any coal mine or metalliferous mine, unless he gets very handsome pay in respect of overtime. Why, then, should you compel people who admittedly, by repeated action of the Legislature, stand in need of special protection — why should you compel boys of the age of 12 to work more than eight hours a-day? I ask what are the practical arguments which can be advanced in favour of compelling boys of the age of 12 to do what you cannot compel men to do, and which men in your experience throughout the whole of the country have invariably refused to do? If this Amendment is adopted, will any coal mine be brought to a stop? Will any mine be impeded in its action—will the output of any man be seriously lessened by preventing boys at the age of 12 from working more than eight hours a-day? Why do not men work more than eight hours a-day at the bottom of the pit? Simply because it is physically impossible, and because, although you adopt all the provisions which science gives you from year to year in the way of better ventilation, yet the air is so bad, and the positions which have to be taken up in the mine are so cramped and confined, and its dangers are so great, and the stress on the minds and bodies of the workers so manifold, that it is impossible for them to work more than eight hours a-day. Grown men cannot work for more than eight hours in a coal mine; why, then, should you compel boys to do so? [Mr. MATTHEWS: We do not compel them.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Government do not compel them; but he must know very well that anything the Legislature does not protect a boy from being required to do, he is practically compelled to do. He is not a free agent. Where, I ask, is inconvenience likely to arise through the adoption of this Amendment? Where is the loss likely to come to any of your great industries from the adoption of this proposal? I submit that the hon. Member who has moved this Amendment (Mr. Mason) has made out his case, and I trust the Government will reconsider the matter, and receive the Amendment in the same frank and can did spirit that they received the previous Amendment. It has not been shown—the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not even sought to show—that any harm will accrue to any coal mine through the adoption of this Amendment; and I ask for boys of 12 years of age that they shall be put in the same position of freedom from more than eight hours' work which is allowed to grown-up miners.

When a boy goes down a coal pit, he conforms to the time of going down and coming up fixed by the managers of the collieries; the time is fixed from the period of his leaving the bank-top to his coming up again; and if the hours are shortened it might have the effect of interrupting the whole work of the pit. Boys are not put to any excessively hard work. They are obliged to leave their work some time before the expiration of the period for them to work, because they probably have to walk a long distance and to wait at the bottom of the shaft before they can come to the bank. If this Amendment were adopted it would cause considerable inconvenience. It would actually arrest the work in a pit very materially. I venture to argue that these boys do not suffer in any way, and I trust the Government will not accede to the Amendment proposed.

I beg to support, on behalf of my own constituents, what has been said by the hon. Member for Mid Lanark (Mr. Mason) and by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). It seems that the employment of boys is not considered a grievance by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It most undoubtedly is in Scotland, and for that reason I have risen to say these few words in support of the Amendment. I will not waste the time of the Committee, but will simply appeal to it not to insist, in the case of boys, upon an arrangement which the men have been able to abolish for themselves.

I am afraid the Committee is going to legislate too hastily upon this point. I fully admit the desirability of reducing the hours of labour of young persons; but in this case there are great practical difficulties. There are, of course, many more men than boys in our coal pits and in our colliery houses. Men grow up from boys, and boys are only boys, in our colliery accounts, from 12 to 16 years of age. Men are men from 16 to 60. Therefore, it is always a difficult thing in working a mine to have a sufficient number of boys, as compared with the number of men in the mine. In the next clause it is provided that the working hours shall be fixed from the hour of leaving the surface to getting back to the surface. Now, boys do not go down the pit with the first shift. They go down afterwards—an hour or two afterwards. Then, in many places, and certainly in the mines I am best acquainted with, they have to go along the workings of the mine often a very long way indeed, which occupies a considerable amount of time. Therefore, if you take their real hours of labour, they do not work anything like the period that the hon. Member for Cork has suggested. Then there are a great number of the boys who, although employed down the mine, are not engaged in hard work at all. A great number of them have nothing to do but open and shut doors. There are many places where a boy sits for hours in a mine with nothing to do but open and shut a door used, for ventilating purposes, which is not required to be open or shut more than two or three times while he is down the pit. Then there are boys employed in driving ponies, and that is certainly not hard work. No doubt, there is harder work for them to do; but so far as the men are concerned, you have double shifts of men, and their work—coal hewing—is very laborious. It would injure the interests of both men and boys, at the present time, if you impose a shorter limit of time the latter are to work from entering the pit to returning to the bank.

I should be glad if the Government were to accept this Amendment in the same spirit in which they accepted the preceding one. It seems to me a strange thing that we should have heard across the House to-night the same sort of thing that we heard many years ago. That is to say, the sneering at the sentimental and humanitarian spirit which has dictated some of these Amendments. The fact is, that the same arguments that we found used in days gone by, when children of four years of age were permitted to work in mines—precisely the same arguments were addressed to us to-day on several of these points. It seems to me that it is an act of great cruelty to permit boys to go into the mine and to remain there longer than eight hours a-day. I am astonished at the hon. Baronet who has just spoken (Sir Joseph Pease), who says that boys may be in the pit, but without doing any very severe description of work; and I am astonished at his saying that this work does not involve hardship. I put it to hon. Members in this House whether being compelled to sit for a great number of hours in this Chamber, even without taking part in the debates, does not tire them out as much as if they had been speaking and voting? I think that the task and the pressure upon boys begin at the very moment they leave their homes to go to the pit, and that that pressure is not taken off until they return to their homes again. The amount of work the boys will have to do is not merely eight hours a-day—it will not be eight hours a-day if this Amendment is accepted—it will be eight and a-half hours and nine hours, or perhaps even more than nine hours, from the time the boy has to leave his home in the morning until the time he returns to it again. I hope we shall endeavour to curtail the long hours of work so far as regards boys, which means boys between the ages of 12 and 16. What I trust is that time will be given, and that inducements will be given, to boys of this tender age—that is to say, from 12 to 16—to provide themselves with scientific and technical education during the hours that they are away from their work. Anyone who has to work hard will know very well how incapable the mind of a boy is to receive impressions from instruction of this kind when his energies have been exhausted by hard work during the day. I wish the Government would exercise something of that sentimental and humanitarian spirit which some hon. Members sneer at in others, and would accept this Amendment. I feel certain that though some of their Supporters may blame them for it to-day in Committee, and may probably vote against them if the Amendment is pressed on the Committee—I feel persuaded, I say, that presently the Conservative Party will find that this and the other concession they have made are among the reasons why they have been kept in power by a grateful country.

There is one point which has not been brought thoroughly enough before the Committee, but which, it seems to me, should impress us far more than the question of eight hours' work. Those boys engaged in a coal pit may not be hard at work; but I know how extremely deleterious it is for young persons to be in the galleries of a mine, though they may be doing nothing, for though their work may not be excessive, they have to inhale the dust that pervades the place. I believe that eight hours are amply sufficient time to keep boys underground. Certainly 48 hours a-week is enough. We know that the boys are ordered down the mine and that they have no choice in the matter. They obey the command of their parents, and though they do not immediately show a deterioration of health by breathing the coal dust in the mine, yet in the course of a very few years a very serious effect is often produced on their lungs.

It is very easy to make the statutory conditions of labour such that an industry cannot be carried on in the country. I venture to think that there is a serious danger of hon. Members, who may be considered amateurs on this question of the employment of men, exercising pressure upon the Government in order to bring about a restriction upon labour. I do not desire to see men or boys improperly employed in connection with collieries; but I doubt very much whether in many parts of the country, the work of the collieries could be carried on if greater restrictions were imposed than are already in operation, and that will come into force under this Bill. It must be borne in mind that we have to contend with the whole of the world, and this work which, in other countries, is not bound by anything like the amount of restriction that is imposed here. To my mind, it is impossible to accept any further restrictions than are proposed in the Bill, and I therefore hope the Committee will not agree to this Amendment.

I think it is impossible to leave such arguments as those just addressed to the Committee by the hon. Member who has just sat down without an answer. The hours of labour—the restrictions as the hon. Member called them—are simply a question of money. If it is necessary to employ a larger number of boys, they can be got; and if it is necessary to pay more money for this work that the boys do, it could be paid. The question is whether if ten hours a-day is too much work for a man in a coal pit, young children should be compelled to work so long? The question is simply one of physiology, and nothing else, and I say that there is no answer to be made to the objections which have been raised to the hours contained in the clause. If hon. Members on this side of the House say that there are not enough boys to serve the larger proportion of men, and that, therefore, the number of men being so large, the boys require to be employed longer hours than men, I say that that is an inhuman argument. Let the masters pay for more boys or let them pay other people to do the work.

I am sorry to have to speak again. The hon. Member (Mr. Donald Crawford) talks about paying more money; but I would point out to him that the difficulty has been to pay money at all in the coal trade. The difficulty, in many cases, has been to keep the pits going three days in the week. I submit that if we had to pay more money, we might just as well close our collieries. I know several firms who have only done two-thirds of their ordinary work during the last two or three years, and if more money is paid in order to bring more boys into the mines, it means that the cost of production will be increased and the ability to compete in the market decreased, and that the men will get less work; because the mine owners cannot employ additional work at additional cost. As to the humanitarian part of the question, practically, the boys are not kept 54 hours in the mines. There is hardly any work at all done on Saturdays; and if there is, it is only a short day. I declare that we should make the bad times which the coal trade is going through still worse if we accepted this Amendment.

There are other causes, perhaps, which are at work to make the mine owners and masters feel that the operations of mining are not profitable, apart from the wages which are paid to the poor men and the boys, and I think that they should look for those causes elsewhere. It is not necessary to go into these matters now, the question before us being simply one of the health of the rising generation. The question is, whether boys in the coal districts should be allowed to work more than eight hours a-day, and whether longer hours or not injures the constitution of the rising generation of the coal-mining community. Anyone interested in the coal-mining districts has only to go and look at the men to form an opinion as to the unhealthiness of the occupation to which they have devoted their lives. At 40 years, these men are practically done, in consequence of the injurious nature of the work they have to perform. Well, I maintain that it is the duty of the Legislature to protect boys, who are not responsible for their own actions, from an injurious occupation of this kind, until they are, at any rate, 16 years of age. It is the duty of the Legislature to protect them in order to enable them to take better positions in society, and to enable them to last for a longer period than 40 years. Is that not an economical argument for the country if measures can be adopted which can enable colliers to live for a longer period than 40 years? I must insist upon taking a Division upon this Amendment, which, I think, is a most important one, and I trust the Committee will support me. The Government, I think, will do well to weigh the importance of the question, which is one important, not only to the mining district, but to the country generally.

No doubt the profit of the coal-owners is to be found in running their concern as cheaply as possible, and the younger he can get his men the lower will be the scale of wages. The other charges he has to consider are the royalties to be paid for the coal gotten, and also other charges. Now, the fixed charges, whatever the amount gotten may be, are not easily reducible, and the royalties are paid so much a ton, but those royalties are merged in the dead rent. [ Interruption. ] Yes, in this country the royalties are merged in the dead rent, whatever the amount of the royalty may be if it be below a certain minimum. The fixed charges, I say, are not easily reducible; and when, therefore, the coal owners have to economize, what is it that they press upon? Why, they press upon the flesh and blood which they employ. I maintain that it is the duty of the Committee to protect those people who are at the mercy of the coal owners.

I have always contended myself that adult miners are quite capable of protecting themselves; therefore, I have only supported this legislation as regards boys and females. The case of boys, as the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) has pointed out, is very different to that of the men. I know something by experience as to boys going into mines at an early age, and working for 12 or 13 hours in a day. One of the things I have cared most for since I grew up to adult life was the putting an end to that system, or its limitation as far as possible. I am glad, therefore, that this discussion has been raised. I think there is great force in what was stated by the hon. Member for Cork, that every argument in favour of limiting the hours for the men is intensified in force when you come to deal with the case of boys. The men protect themselves by their unions. They will not work more than eight hours a-day wherever they are well organized. It is only in districts where they are disunited that they work for longer periods. At the same time, in dealing with these matters, there are questions of great difficulty to face, such as have been pointed out by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Barnard Castle Division of Durham (Sir Joseph Pease). It is quite true, also, that in the case of the boys the labour is much lighter than in the case of the men; and in the Northern Counties especially we have what is known as the double shift system, where there are two shifts of men and one shift of boys, the boys going into the mine at a later hour, and working about 10 hours. Now, I myself would not hesitate to say that that is a very bad system, and I would gladly vote for a limitation, even to the extent of eight hours a-day. It is fair, however, to say that the whole system in the North of England is based upon this practice, and that it has now gone on for a great number of years. The men are thoroughly well organized. There has been no agitation at all with regard to this of late years; and so far as my constituency are concerned—though I have no doubt that they would be glad to see the hours limited to eight hours a-day—they certainly have never pressed on me the desirability of urging upon Parliament the alteration of the hours to eight hours a-day. At the same time, there are, as I have said, great practical difficulties to surmount. It is notorious that the coal trade is in a very depressed state at the present time. That is particularly so in the North of England. This Amendment would add immensely to the difficulty of the situation; but nevertheless I feel so strongly upon the matter that, recognizing all the practical difficulties that are in the way, I feel I shall be bound to support my hon. Friend who has moved that Amendment, and to vote for him in the Division, leaving matters to adjust themselves as best they may.

The authority which the hon. Member who has just spoken upon matters affecting coal mines is so great that it would make one hesitate before voting against him on a question of principle. But the Government have a great responsibility in this matter, and it seems to me that the hesitation the hon. Member has expressed imposes upon us the duty of not hastily adopting a change which the hon. Member himself says may be attended by very serious difficulties. This is not a question of individual profit so far as certain employers of labour are concerned, but it is whether a great industry shall be seriously impaired in its arrangements at a period when it is admittted that very great depression exists; and whether, also, colliers themselves should be put to great disadvantages by reason of the difficulty they would experience if an insufficient number of boys are employed. There is a desire on the part of all who are interested in the welfare of their fellow subjects to lighten the burdens of labour as much as possible; but there is also another duty imposed on us, and that is not to put difficulties in the way of the conduct of enterprises which, as I have suggested, are struggling with manifold difficulties. On the whole, it seems to me that we are bound to maintain the existing regulations until it is shown that they can be altered with advantage. Reference has been made to the long hours of employment of boys; but as I understand this clause it means that no boy can under any circumstances be employed for longer hours than 10 hours a day—that is to say, he must not be employed for a longer period than that from bank to bank. The boy must be on the bank again within 10 hours of the period at which he left it—that is admitted to be a very serious though a proper curtailment of the hours of labour. I feel the fullest sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) and by other hon. Members who have spoken on this question; but, under all the circumstances of the case, we feel it to be our duty to support the clause as it stands.

This is no doubt a question of considerable difficulty. I am connected with a large colliery and other works in South Wales, and I can quite corroborate what has been said as to the depression which exists in this branch of industry. Everyone knows that colliery owners have been for a long time working with very little, and too often absolutely without profit, and that, therefore, any additional burden laid on the colliery interest is a very serious matter to the country. But the difficulties we have experienced are not caused by the hours during which men or boys are kept in the mines. The question of profit is not whether boys should work 54 hours or 48 hours. We all know that the atmosphere of the coal pit is not a good one. But the real reason why our colliery industry is in this depressed condition is because we are foolish enough to compete too much with one another. We turn out too much coal, and the effect is that the price of coal is lowered and all chance of reasonable profit is destroyed in the business. I consider that the question of keeping boys underground for more than eight hours a-day is one of such serious importance as affecting their health, that I, for one, would set it in the scale against the question of any small loss which may on this account be caused to the employers.

Before the Government, by the help of their mechanical majority, defeat us in this matter, I wish to protest, on behalf of the miners in Scotland, in the most emphatic way I am able against the attitude they have taken up. All the arguments which have been adduced on the other side have been adduced from the capitalist point of view, and against labour. [ Cries of "No, no!"] Yes; that is so. I listened to the arguments of the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) as to the manner in which he made up his mind upon this question on which he has a right to speak with authority, and I should have thought that his observations ought to have had some influence with Her Majesty's Government. But it seems that the habit of closure has now become inveterate. We may look for the interests of the working classes being neglected for discussions affecting their interests being stopped by the closure as the interests of the Irish people have been. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary seems to think that we in Scotland are in terror of more State supervision. All I can say is, that we in Scotland are not in the slightest terror of it, and that we look confidently for the time when the Government will take possession of the mines and machinery of this country, and work them for the benefit of the country, and not in the selfish interests of capitalists.

I have always hitherto been on the side of those who are anxious to shorten the hours of labour of those whom we employ; but I feel that I cannot remain quiet when such an important question as this is being discussed. I cannot but admit with regard to the mines, with which I am connected, that if this Amendment is accepted, it will lead to the curtailment of the employment of a considerable number of men in the two counties of Durham and Northumberland. Who are the boys who are employed in our mines? Why, they are the children of the miners themselves, and notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) says, that the men can protect themselves by means of their unions, whilst the boys have no protection, I maintain that in actual practice the boys are also protected by the unions. Who influences and guides the boys? Why, their fathers and the representatives of the union with which the fathers are connected. The hon. Member has alluded to the system we have in working our mines in Northumberland and Durham—namely, that of double shifts. Now, that has been a system which has been in operation as long as I can remember, and I am satisfied of this—that if this Amendment is adopted it will probably lead to a large number of mines being worked by single shifts; and, if that takes place, I feel sure that the cost of working will be so increased that out of the mines in two counties, at least, one-third will have to be closed. Now, there is another fact I cannot overlook, and it must show the importance of this matter to those who are not practically acquainted with mines. From whom has this Amendment come? It has not come from those who are practically connected with mining; it has not come from those who represent the mining interest in this country; but it has come from people who are utterly unconnected with mines; and I would point out that, with the exception of the hon. Member for Morpeth, there has not been a single Member connected with the mining industry who has defended this Amendment. I allude more particularly to hon. Members who are the direct Representatives of the miners. Now, I must confess that there is something more to be said as to the employment of boys. The boys employed in our district are between 13 and 16 years of age; the younger ones are always employed at light work as drivers or as doorkeepers in order to protect the ventilation; and that it is only the older ones who are employed as putters. In the mines I know of I do not think there are any under the age of 15 who are employed as putters, putting being heavy work. I regret that I am obliged to oppose the Amendment; but I do not in the interests of capitalists, but in the interests of those dependent upon capitalists. I feel sure that in opposing this Amendment I am simply looking at the interests of those who are employed by the mine owners of the two counties I have mentioned. The hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Cunninghame Graham) said he hoped to see the time when the Government would take up and carry through a Bill for the purpose of taking over the coal mines and the machinery of the country. Well, if the hon. Member will only bring in a Bill to that effect, I know scores of mine owners in the counties of Durham and Northumberland who will only be too glad to accept reasonable terms from the Government—2 or 2½ per cent on the capital they have invested—to hand over their undertakings to the State.

Perhaps the Committee will forgive me for intruding myself upon them for a minute or two; but I wish to point out that this is one of the three or four great questions that we had to consider last year in preparing our Bill. We inquired into these matters very fully, and obtained information from many sources, especially from the miners; and my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst) and myself came to the conclusion that it would be better not to propose a change in the law. I would point out the ground upon which we came to that conclusion. The fact is, that the miners, the owners, and the inspectors from different mining districts differ materially upon this matter. We found in Scotland that a large number of those interested in mining would prefer the time to be reduced to eight hours. I do not say that that opinion was universal in Scotland, but it certainly very largely prevailed. In the North of England an opposite opinion prevailed. I remember well the pains we took to ascertain the opinions of the miners of Northumberland and Durham, and some of the other North Country coal districts, and we found they were not in favour of the reduction to 48 hours. Under these circumstances, it occurs to me whether it is necessary to have a hard-and-fast line on this matter applicable to all the mining districts. I need not remind the Committee that coal mining differs materially in the way it is carried on in different districts; and what I would venture to propose to the Committee, and especially to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Matthews), is this—that we should now allow the clause to pass in the shape in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes it, but that he should at a later stage bring up an additional clause giving power to the Secretary of State to reduce the hours to 48 in particular mining districts. If that power were given to the Home Secretary, he would be able, with the aid of the valuable body of men with whom he would consult, to distinguish between the districts in which the longer hours might be allowed to prevail and the districts in which the system of short hours should be established. If the Committee agree with me in that view, I would venture to urge it on the right hon. and learned Secretary of State. That would settle this controversy. He already possesses large powers in similar matters, and I think, by accepting this suggestion, it would be found possible to settle the matter in a manner satisfactory to all parties.

In the Midland Counties we only make 48 hours in the week, but we do not work more than six hours on Saturday. The adoption of this Amendment would have a serious effect on the mining industry in those counties. Some hon. Members have remarked upon the impurity of the air in our coal mines. Well, all I can say is that in most of our mines in the Midland Counties the air is quite as good as it is in this House. The mines are better ventilated, and are freer from noxious gases.

If the Government are disposed to agree to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) I would suggest that it should be put in the converse way, in some such words as the following—

"48 hours, but the Home Secretary shall have authority to grant such hours to a district as may be thought desirable."

I speak for the mining districts of Scotland, and I say that if the Home Secretary had that power, he would be able to meet the views of those who raise complaints upon the point under consideration.

Any proposition coming from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh on this question deserves careful attention, and I am very glad to hear and consider it. This, however, is the first time the idea has been suggested to me, and as at present advised, I shall find great difficulty in giving effect to it in practice. I should be extremely reluctant to have this power conferred on myself personally. I should consider it a most onerous and disagreeable duty to have to say that in a particular district the hours of labour shall be shorter than in another district, or that they shall be longer in one district than in other districts. However, I quite feel the importance of the suggestion that our legislation should be adjusted to the varying conditions of the various parts of the country; and if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to avoid pledging myself at present, I will pay very careful attention to the proposal he has made, and will see if I can frame a clause in accordance with his suggestion.

I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary if, in view of what has been stated on this question, he will see fit to introduce a clause into the Bill dealing with the working hours of adults as well as boys, and establishing a working day of eight hours for the miners throughout the Kingdom?

It is true that many of the mining Representatives are loth to adopt the suggestion that the number of hours should be limited to eight per day. But in Scotland—in Lanarkshire, Ayrshire, Clackmannan, and Fifeshire—all the miners are in favour of eight hours for boys. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary assented to the idea thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh, but did not say anything about the suggestion of the hon. Member for Mid Lanarkshire, which was that 48 hours should be taken as the nominal figure, but that power should be given to the Home Secretary to dispense with that limit and extend the working hours where the districts were suited to it, to 54 hours, or whatever might be convenient. No answer was given to that. What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think of it—the Committee will be glad to know.

On behalf of the mining industry of Staffordshire, I wish to say that if this suggestion is adopted it will have the effect of materially interfering with the working of the mines in that county. In that county they all work single shifts of seven hours a day, and I venture to say that the effect of the Amendment would be to close the mines to a large extent. For my own part, speaking of Staffordshire alone, I should be content if the hours were limited to nine hours a day from bank to bank. That would give eight hours for work and an hour for meals. I submit that if the Amendment is adopted it will be injurious to the working miners of Staffordshire. I venture to say that there is not a single miner in Staffordshire who desires it, and if time is allowed they will, I am sure, express themselves against it.

It is said that the Representatives of the miners do not take part in the discussion, because they are loth to vote for eight hours a-day. The reason we have not spoken is that we consider the ground has been sufficiently covered by the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt). If a Division is taken, notwithstanding the difficulties that may be in the way, I shall have no hesitation in going into the same Lobby with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lanarkshire (Mr. Mason) on this question. We have all along contended that 10 hours a-day was too extended a period for boys to be employed in mines. Any movement in the direction of reducing the hours, so as to bring them on a level with those adopted by adult miners themselves, certainly would have our fullest sympathy and heartiest support. As I say, I shall have no hesitation whatever in going into the same Lobby with my hon. Friend.

As there seems to be considerable difference of opinion on this matter, I would suggest that this clause should stand with reference to Scotland alone. I think many will be inclined to support it who would not do so if it were made applicable to the whole Kingdom.

I would express a hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary will not accept the suggestion just made, and make the law, so far as Scotland is concerned, different to that of the rest of the United Kingdom. We come here to plead for the whole of the United Kingdom. I consider that any change of hours in one county, making the hours of work different to those of another county, would be a very bad thing indeed. I trust the Government will not allow themselves to be committed to anything of that sort.

I have had 40 years' experience in the working of mines, and I think I was the first to adopt the eight hours' system. We always worked eight hours when we worked double shifts; but when we worked single shifts the men applied to have 10 hours, so as to have a day and a-quarter. I would point out that to insist on eight hours in this Amendment would be to prevent the men having the day and a-half they applied for. I have considered the question with great care; I have watched the working of the different systems for 40 years; and I feel, from the experience I have had, that I cannot support the Amendment as it stands, though I have always approved of an ordinary working day of eight hours.

I should be sorry in this matter to see "a house divided against itself." I regret that we are placed in this position. As a matter of principle, I should have no hesitation in voting for the Amendment; but as it now stands its effect would be to disarrange all the colliery arrangements of the most important district of Monmouthshire and South Wales. The men there have not been agitating on this question. They have given us no instructions to provide this Amendment, and I should be very thankful indeed if my hon. Friend could see his way not to push the proposal to a Division at this moment.

Question put.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 171; Noes 81: Majority 90. — (Div. List, No. 254.) [5.20 P.M.]

Question proposed, "That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill."

Before the clause is agreed to, I should like to point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary that at present the arrangement made for the limitation of employment of boys under ground is not the same as the arrangement made, under Clause 8, for the employment of boys above ground. I do not want to detain the Committee one moment longer than is necessary; but it is plain that there is some anomaly here, and I wish to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman what he proposes to do, so that the work under ground shall not be more arduous or trying than that over ground?

It is quite true there is an anomaly at first sight. The Bill, as it stands, admits of longer hours of labour for boys under ground than over ground; but it must be borne in mind that the maximum number of hours of labour of boys under ground is necessarily determined by the shifts of the men. In the case of boys working above ground, I am not quite sure whether it is not by accident that "thirteen" appears there. There is an anomaly here, and I do not know what defence in reason one can offer for it.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has admitted there is an anomaly, and says it is indefensible in reason and logic.

Not in logic; I said in reason.

Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will now intimate his willingness to reconsider the practical suggestion thrown out to him by the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Mr. Childers)—namely, to take power in another clause to enable the Home Secretary to modify the existing general rule in regard to special districts, in order that where it may be possible to limit employment of boys under ground, the Home Secretary may do so.

It ought to be remembered that a boy who works under ground may spend an hour or an hour and a-half in going to and from his work; whereas a boy above ground is at his work directly he gets to the pit mouth.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 7 (Regulations as to employment of boys between ten and sixteen below ground) agreed to.

Clause 8 (Employment of boys, girls, and women above ground).

I beg to move to leave out the word "girls," in page 2, line 29. I do not know whether the Committee will think it convenient, upon this Amendment, to consider the whole question of the employment of women; it may, possibly, not be, seeing that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) has an Amendment upon the Paper raising directly the larger question. The word "girl" is defined in this Bill to mean females between 13 and 16 years of age; and the Amendment I now move would, if carried, prevent the engagement of girls other than those now at work. Perhaps, Sir, I may be allowed one general remark. I should not have put down Amendments to this Bill had I not had a long practical experience in the working of coal mines. This is a technical matter, and I venture to think, with all respect to hon. Members, that we shall get the Bill through the Committee much more satisfactorily if we confine ourselves to the Amendments of those who have practical acquaintance with this great industry. I am heartily in sympathy with the remarks which fell from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway with respect to the employment of women. Speaking, as I have said, from practical experience of coal mines, I do not understand how anyone can think it is fitting that women and girls should be employed on the pit banks. I am quite aware that some hon. Members opposite, who come from Lancashire, take a somewhat different view; but I think even they will admit that the facts are against them. I see, from a Return placed in our hands, that in 1873 there were 6,899 women employed on the pit banks in Lancashire; but that in 1886 there were not more than 4,131. These figures prove conclusively that the feeling of the population is against this employment; that this employment is, as an hon. Gentleman has said, "a doomed system." Reference has been made to the economical working of the mines, and, after all, the employment of women and children is closely connected with the question of economy. The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) spoke just now of "cheap," meaning by that "low priced," labour. But the hon. Member will agree with me that "price" is only one element in the cost of labour. Efficiency is just as important. You might have two men, one paid at 2 s. 6 d. per day and another at 5 s. per day, of whom it would be perfectly true to say that the labour of the latter would be the cheapest. We coal owners know that the lowest class of labour is not the most convenient or economical. I refer to this subject because I am afraid from some remarks which fell from hon. Members opposite that they support the employment of women and girls purely on account of the lower rate at which they can obtain this labour. Of course, the Amendment I now propose deals with only a very small branch of the question of the employment of females. If my Amendment is accepted by Her Majesty's Government, which I am not without hope may be the case, it will only affect the future. The right hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill will see there is another Amendment standing in my name, to the effect that after the passing of this Act no girl shall be engaged. Not one of the 277 girls who are at the present moment employed will be affected by my Amendment. Under these circumstances, I press upon Her Majesty's Government the desirability of accepting what is so very small an Amendment. As I am extremely desirous not to take up the time of the Committee, I beg, without further remark, to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 29, leave out the word "girls."—( Mr. J. E. Ellis. )

Question proposed, "That the word "girls" stands part of the Clause."

I hope the Committee will allow me to say a few words upon this question, as it is quite impossible to separate it from the question of the employment of women. I must apologize to the Committee for rising again, considering the indulgence they have already accorded to me. Some hon. Members, however, have challenged the statement made by me, to the effect that there was no selection of the women who waited upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, and also that they were entirely free agents in the matter. When the Committee grant me their indulgence, I feel the least I can do is to be accurate in my statements. I made the statement in question yesterday with full knowledge of the facts; but I thought it right, in justice to myself and in justice to those for whom I stand here to-day, to seek some corroboration of the statement. I have communicated with the person who organized the deputation. That person is not a tyrannical employer, but a gentle woman—namely, the wife of the present Mayor of Wigan. The first statement made was that the pit-brow women who waited upon the Home Secretary were sent by their employers. The best answer I can make is that the women are paying their own expenses, and that they are supplying any deficiency which may arise by weekly instalments. The real fact of the matter is, that the deputation to my right hon. and learned Friend was suggested by the women themselves, and did not emanate from their employers at all. The next statement made was that the women were selected. My answer on that point is simply this—that the selection was made by ballot. There was a ballot amongst the women, and the women who appeared at the Home Office appeared as the result of that ballot. I think the facts which I now state are a complete justification of that which I advanced, and a complete reply to the statements made on the other side. I do not at all complain of the tone of the remarks of hon. Gentlemen. The remarks were made with every courtesy, and I simply wish to set right the facts of the case. Then, the next point on which I wish to say a word is the character of the pit-brow women. I stated on Monday that their character was equal to that of those women employed in factories, and I repeat that statement now. I am entirely justified in what I said on Monday by every inquiry which I can make and by personal knowledge of the district. Many of the women who are employed on the pit bank on week-days take their places on Sunday in the schools; they are by no means of the character some people would have us believe. The next observation I wish to make has reference to the fruits of these women's industry. Some of the women who waited upon the Home Secretary stated that by their labour they are able to keep their parents from the workhouse. One of the women was the only child of her mother, and her labour on the pit bank has saved herself and mother from the disgrace of the workhouse. That is not the only instance of the kind. It is an example, and by no means an exhaustive example, of the condition of things in the mining districts. I certainly feel that the Committee will act with great hardship and severity if they interfere with the labour of these women. I will make but one observation more. There was no one more strongly in favour of this employment of women than Professor Fawcett. He was opposed to any interference, by legislation, with the employment of women, and he did not shrink from expressing his opinion strongly on the subject.

It being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress.

Having been informed that many Gentlemen have come to town to watch the progress of this Bill, and to assist in its passing, I have thought I might be at liberty to alter the arrangement of Business I have previously intimated. I suggest that, instead of Supply, this Bill should be set down as the first Order of the Day to-morrow. I trust that the re-arrangement of Business I propose will meet with the consent of the House, and that to-morrow we may make considerable progress with the Bill.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.