said, that a Motion was standing in his name for the Evening Sitting with reference to technical education. That Motion had been on the Paper for a considerable time; but last night he was agreeably surprised by the announcement made by the Government that they intended to bring in a Bill on an early day to deal with the subject. Under these circumstances, he thought he would best consult the interest and convenience of the House by postponing his Motion.

Sir, in moving the Amendment that in page 8, line 36, of this Bill, the word "may" shall be left out and the word "shall" inserted, I must request hon. Members to glance a little further down the Amendment Paper. They will then see that I propose to make another Amendment, by adding, at the end of the first sub-section of the 14th clause, the following words:—

"Except in cases where the majority of persons employed in any mine resolve that they do not desire that a check weigher should be appointed."

The effect, therefore, of these two Amendments, taken as a whole, will be this—that whereas now the men "may" appoint a check-weigher if they choose, if my Amendments are accepted they will be compelled to appoint a check-weigher, unless the majority do not wish to have one. I think a good deal even may be said in favour of the compulsory appointment of check-weighers by the men; on the other hand, there are manifest objections to so considerable a change in the law, as, where mines are very small, it would be a hardship to oblige the men to maintain a check-weigher, and there may be cases in large mines where the men are satisfied with the condition of the weighing, and where, therefore, it is needless to put them to the expense of maintaining a check-weigher. I, therefore, have no intention of proposing to make the appointment of a check-weigher a compulsory one; but what I do want is, that the law should seem, as far as possible, to favour the appointment of check-weighers—that the presumption of the law, in fact, should be in their favour; that it should be made as easy as possible for the men to appoint check-weighers, and as difficult as possible for the masters to throw obstacles in the way of their appointment. It may be said that my Amendment will make no material change in the Bill before us; that the Bill, as regards the appointment of check-weighers, is permissive, and that these Amendments, if accepted, will leave it permissive. I, however, venture to demur to this criticism; for I think every candid-minded person will admit that it is much more difficult for a man to divest himself of a right which the law has conferred upon him, and obliged him to assume, than it is to divest himself of a right which the law has conferred upon him, but which it has not obliged him to assume, but only left him to assume, if he has power to do so. Now, Sir, I will try and explain the reasons which induce me to introduce an Amendment which many of the Representatives of large mining constituencies, where the Miners' Union is strong, may consider superfluous. Different localities require different legislative treatment; and I will remind the Committee that this principle was generally admitted by the Home Secretary, when, last night, he promised to consider a proposal made by the late Home Secretary, which was intended to confer upon him powers that would practically have permitted him to shorten the hours of labour in one district, while he left them extended in another. Since I have represented a constituency which comprises a great many miners, I have done my best to inquire into their wants and grievances. I wish, for my part, that this Bill was more likely than I think it is to meet their wishes, Now, I have found no complaint more universal among the miners than that the weighing of the coal was inaccurate; and when I have asked the men why, under those circumstances, they did not appoint a check-weigher, they usually answered that the masters would not permit them to do so. Now, I have no desire to make any allegations against the employers. I hope and believe that they act perfectly fairly by their men; but what I wish to do is to represent the prevailing opinion of the miners in my constituency. Nor do I think it possible for any body to consider the suspicious of the men unnatural. So long as the men are paid by the weight of what they produce, and so long as those who weigh are the servants of the employers, so long is suspicion certain to attach to the weighing. Where there is no check-weigher, the masters, it appears to me, are placed in an entirely false position, and one which should render them inclined, to accept my Amendments. Before sitting down, I should like to give an illustration of the difficulties which occur where there is no check-weigher. In one of the largest pits in the Irvine district there is no check-weigher. If the weight of a hutch is challenged on being weighed, the man who filled it is permitted to come to the surface and check the weight himself; but he is not allowed to go down into the pit again. Therefore, to verify the weight of his hutch, he may have to lose a great part of a day's work. It is needless to say that such a state of things produces much irritation. It causes suspicion, perhaps unjust suspicion, to be cast upon the honesty of the masters, and it constitutes a real grievance in respect to the men. It is in the hope of minimizing these evils as much as possible that I now move my Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 36, leave out "may," and insert "shall."—( Mr. Hugh Elliot. )

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

I only wish to say a few words, generally, with regard to the inconvenience referred to by the hon. Member who has just sat down. We, who represent English constituencies containing workmen as well as the employers, know nothing whatever of them. Although in the Scotch collieries the owners may object to the appointment of check-weighers, in England and Wales, whenever such a desire is expressed no difficulty is ever raised. The subject underwent careful consideration at the conference which took place between the employers and the workmen, and certain Amendments were put down on the Paper which stands now in the names of the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) and myself. I believe that the employers are prepared to accept those Amendments, provided that the rest of the clause is allowed to remain. I understand that if they are adopted they will satisfy the real requirements of the men; and, therefore, I hope that the Committee will confine themselves to those Amendments, and not be prepared to discuss any others.

I sympathize strongly with the views of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire (Mr. Hugh Elliot). The clause was framed by me with an earnest desire to give the men an efficient check upon the weights, and I have already promised the Committee that I will accept any important change of the language of the clause which is calculated to effect that object. I think, however, that we should create a constant source of heartburning and disagreement between the masters and the men if there is not to be thorough confidence in the mode of weighing which is carried out. As regards the particular form of this Amendment, the difficulty I feel is this. If the two Amendments of the hon. Member are put together, as I think they ought to be, the clause would run thus—

"The persons who are employed in a mine, and are paid according to the amount of mineral gotten by them, shall, at their own cost, station a person, in this Act referred to as a check-weigher, at the place appointed for the weighing of the mineral, in order to take an account of the weight thereof on behalf of the persons by whom he is so stationed, except in cases where the majority of persons employed in any mine resolve that they do not desire that a check-weigher should be appointed."

The effect of that would be to turn the clause from a form permissive to a form compulsory; but, at the same time, power would be given to the majority of the men not to carry it out, This, as a matter of fact, is the mere making of a most microscopic change; and then there is this further difficulty—are you going to inflict a penalty if the men do not appoint a check-weigher? If you do not appoint him, your compulsory words are idle, and will have no effect whatever. That difficulty appears to me to be a conclusive argument against the adoption of this Amendment. I quite feel that in a small mine, with a small number of workmen, the disfavour of the employer may prevent a check-weigher from being appointed; and I have endeavoured, in my own mind, to strike at some means by which that difficulty may be met; but I confess that I have been unable to find any means by which I can interfere with the control of the legitimate right of the owners, so as to affect the indirect pressure which may be brought to bear upon the men. Now, I feel that in any case in which the owners are dealing unjustly by the men public opinion may be strongly brought to bear upon them, especially in connection with the growing independence of the men themselves. They are acting now, I believe, in a manner which enables them to be less and less dependent upon the arbitrary will of their employers. Under these circumstances, I cannot see how the insertion of compulsory words in this clause, unsupported by the infliction of a penalty, can improve the provisions of the clause.

I would appeal to my hon. Friend not to press the Amendment. I can confirm entirely what the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has said. Last year the same question came before me, and it appeared to the Government that it was impossible to make the clause compulsory without inserting a penalty for non-compliance with it; therefore I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the Amendment.

Under the circumstances, I shall, with the permission of the Committee, withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I have now to propose, at the end of the clause, to insert, after "stationed"—

"Provided that no person shall be so appointed who shall have been convicted of any offence under this Act, or who shall have been discharged from the said mine for any misconduct."

I believe the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary will consider my Amendment an improvement on the drafting of the clause. It has been framed with the view of making the position of the check-weigher perfectly clear. No doubt the position of a check-weigher is one of great difficulty and delicacy, and men might be appointed who would be very obnoxious, either to the owners or to the managers employed in the colliery. I do not say that such cases frequently occur, but they may possibly occur; and the men, out of a feeling of spite, thinking that they had not been properly treated by the owners or manager, might go out of their way to appoint a man whom they knew to be obnoxious to the owners and managers of a mine. For instance, a discharged miner might be appointed to fulfil that position, and he might be able to render the proceedings at the pit's mouth very disagreeable. The object of my Amendment is to endeavour to remove that temptation, and there is this to be said on behalf of the Amendment—that it is extremely desirable, on the part of the men themselves, that there should be appointed as check-weigher at the pit's mouth a man in whom the managers and the owners have perfect confidence, and in whom they themselves have equal confidence—a man, for instance, who has not been convicted of any offence under the Act, or a man who has not been discharged for any previous misconduct. If it is thought by hon. Gentlemen opposite, or by the Government, that the words of my Amendment are too wide, I shall be perfectly prepared to alter them; but I think something of this kind ought to be inserted in the clause, so as to secure the approval of the owners and the managers of the mine. In order that I may gather what the general feeling of the House is in regard to the matter I beg to move the Amendment as it stands on the Paper.

Amendment proposed,

In page 5, line 40, after "stationed," insert—"Provided that no person shall be so appointed who shall have been convicted of any offence under this Act, or who shall have been discharged from the said mine for any misconduct."—( Mr. J. W. Lowther. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

I think the Amendment of my hon. Friend is one which we can hardly accept. We do not contemplate that the men would deliberately appoint as check-weigher a person who was simply distasteful to their employers, and although there are offences dealt with under this measure which are of a serious character, there are some which may be regarded as very trivial offences; and I think it would be unreasonable, because some man had committed a trivial offence under the Act, that, therefore, he should be disqualified for life to act as check-weigher. I think it would be better to wait until we get a little further on with the clause, when it will be the duty of the Committee to consider whether a check-weigher, who has once been relieved from duties in connection with a particular mine, ought to be allowed to be appointed to any office in connection with the same mine. I am not arguing that question now, but I am simply pointing it out, as a matter which is worthy of consideration—namely, whether a check-weigher, having been once removed for neglect of duty, should be allowed to be re-appointed by the men.

I do not recollect, in an experience which extends over a long series of years, any difficulty arising as to the appointment of check-weigher. In my district every facility has been given by the owners for the appointment of check-weighers, and, in doing so, the owners rely upon the good sense of the men, and their own amour proper, that they will not appoint a man who could only be regarded as a blackguard, but that they will appoint a man who properly understands his business, and who would do what he could to facilitate the working of the mine. I need not point out that it is to the interest of the men themselves that the mines should be worked readily and fairly; and I am afraid that the Amendment, if it were adopted, instead of facilitating matters, would only complicate any difficulty which might arise. All we have to secure is, that the men are perfectly satisfied that they get full value for their labour; and, therefore, it is of the first importance that all these questions should be treated fairly and openly, and that the men should have thorough confidence in the facilities which are provided for weighing the coals they hew without impeding the working of the pit. I may add that, at the present time, I look upon it as most important that no power should be placed in the hands of the owners, except those powers with which the men themselves are thoroughly acquainted.

I imagine that differences may arise between the owners and the men employed, if they think that they are being unfairly treated, and perhaps, in that case, the men might feel inclined to impose on the owners a check-weigher in order to render the position of the owners disagreeable. [ Cries of "No!"] I quite admit that it would not be for the interests of the men that such a state of things should arise. It must not be forgotten, however, that workmen are occasionally misled, and that such a thing might take place. I understand from the Home Secretary that he has no objection to exclude from the appointment of check-weigher any individual whose conduct may have been of such a character as to render him ineligible for the appointment.

In deference to the view of the Government and the Committee I will not press the Amendment. At the same time, I think the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Joseph Pease) has been fortunate in his experience on the East Coast. I cannot say that we have been quite so fortunate in our experience on the West Coast; but, seeing that the matter may be met at a future stage, I will, with the leave of the Committee, withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Durham (Mr. William Crawford) is unfortunately absent, but the Amendment which appears in his name on the Paper is one which I hope the Government will think it right to accept. That Amendment is to the effect that the check-weigher shall be allowed to give to each workman an account of the mineral which he has himself got.

I confess I should have thought that it was not necessary to insert any words to provide that the check-weigher should not only check the weight, but that he should tell the men what had been done. I think it is totally unnecessary to introduce the words proposed in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid Durham.

The statement of the right hon. Gentleman is quite satisfactory. I am glad that he has accepted the principle, and I can assure him that practical experience has proved the necessity of some provision of this kind.

It is not necessary, in moving my Amendment, to make any comment. I have only to express a hope that the Home Secretary will accept it. The clause, as I propose to amend it, would provide that the check-weigher should have every reasonable facility for the performance of his duty.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 41, after "every," insert "reasonable."—( Mr. T. Blake. )

Question proposed, "That the word 'reasonable' be there inserted."

I must say that I object to the watering down of the clause in this way. I do not think it is desirable to introduce words which seem to imply that we are not dealing with every possible contingency.

I quite appreciate the difficulty of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in accepting words which might appear to be words of limitation rather than extension. I should suppose that under the Bill it is intended to authorize the check-weigher to do everything that is necessary to enable him to execute the duties of his office—to ascertain, record, and communicate to his employers the true weight of the mineral. I have no doubt that that was the intention with which the Bill was drawn; but, at the same time, there may be some doubt as to the precise effect of the clause as it stands. Suppose, for instance, that the hutch is run over the weighing-place too quickly, or that it is not brought to rest at the place where its full weight will press upon the steel yard, or that from any other cause the true weight has not been satisfactorily ascertained. In any such case, I think it would be right to give to the check-weigher power to say—"Weigh that hutch over again." Such a power would appear to be a reasonable facility. Without imputing blame to anyone, there might be circumstances which would render it necessary to re-weigh the hutch, or even to examine the machine itself, so as to ascertain whether it was in proper working order. I only mention this matter because there appears to exist a doubt in some minds as to whether the language of the clause would cover such a case. I am sure that any words of explanation coming from the Home Secretary will get rid of any impression that there is a desire to limit the duties of the check-weigher, and I am quite prepared to admit that if you are to begin to enumerate particular cases the enumeration itself would become dangerous, because, as a matter of fact, enumeration is limitation. Therefore, I think there ought to be some declaration to show that the words of the clause are to be reasonably interpreted, so as to cover everything necessary to enable the check-weigher to ascertain the weight as well as the master's weigher can do. I think that would be perfectly sufficient.

Since the Bill was drafted something has occurred to my mind very much of the same kind as that which the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has expressed. The words which have been employed in the clause were considered to be the largest that could be used; but it may be proper to give the check-weigher power to examine the machine and ascertain whether any part of the machinery is defective—power not merely to check the weight, but to ascertain for himself that the machinery is in proper order. I will undertake to do the best I can to make some provision to meet that difficulty on the Report stage; for instance, the inspector of weights and measures might be called in to inspect the machinery at proper intervals. Certainly, the check-weigher should have power, if he sees that something is wrong, to ascertain whether the balance is proper or not, because there may be something to prevent the weight from acting properly, or the lever may be out of order, and, therefore, under the circumstances, I will re-consider the matter, and, if there should be a necessity, will undertake, upon the Report of the Bill, to make it perfectly clear.

I have an Amendment upon the Paper of a similar nature—namely, after the word "every" to insert "reasonable." The reason why I put down that Amendment was that I had considered the concluding words of this sub-section, which provided that if at any mine proper facilities are not afforded to the check-weigher, as required by the section, the owner, agent, or manager of the mine, shall each be guilty of an offence against the Act, unless he proves that he had taken all reasonable means to enforce, to the best of his power, the requirements of the section, and I thought it desirable to include some moderating words in the previous part of the sub-section. We have now, however, received an assurance from the Home Secretary as to what the intention of the Government is, which I think we must accept in the belief that no Court of Law is likely to deal harshly with any case which might arise.

After what has passed, and after the assurance which has been given by the Home Secretary, I will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I have placed the following Amendment on the Paper—to add to the sub-section the following words:—

"Also with power to inspect the weighing machine, without unnecessarily impeding or interrupting the working of the mine, and also to re-weigh a tub or tram when he deems it to be necessary."

I do not know whether, after the statement which has just been made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, he may not be disposed to accept words to that effect. He has certainly accepted the Amendment in principle, but he has not informed the Committee as to the exact words he proposes to adopt.

I read the Amendment of the hon. Member a few days ago, and I have again read it this morning. I think it offends against the rule that it is better not to enumerate the duties or powers of the check-weigher, and that some better words may be devised for carrying out the hon. Member's object. Probably the clause, as it stands, is, upon a subtle interpretation, open to the defect which has been pointed out—namely, that the check-weigher is only to have facilities for checking the weight of the mineral, and that the clause would not enable him to see that the machine itself was in a condition to give a correct result. That is probably a blot in the clause, as it stands, and it may be necessary to insert some general words to avoid any such danger, by providing for the inspection of the weighing machines or the manner in which the weights are worked. There may also be several other things which ought to be provided for by the use of general language, in order to carry out the views which have been expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I quite agree that the check-weigher ought to be able to see that the machine is in working order—not that he should do the work of an Inspector, but that he should be able to discover whether the record of the weighing is accurate or not.

I must remind hon. Members that there is no Amendment before the Committee.

After the assurance which has been given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman I do not propose to move my Amendment.

I rise to move, in page 6, line 9, Sub-section 3, to insert the words "by virtue of any provision in this Act or otherwise." The sub-section will then provide that the check-weigher shall not be authorized in any way, "by virtue of any provision in this Act or otherwise," to impede the working of the mine, or to interfere with the weighing, or with any of the workmen, but shall be authorized only to take an account of the weight. The sub-section further provides that the absence of the check-weigher shall not be a reason for interrupting or delaying the weighing. I simply propose to move the Amendment, leaving it in the hands of the Committee, without attempting to make a speech in support of it.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 9, after "in anyway," insert "by virtue of any provision in this Act or otherwise."—( Mr. T. Blake. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

I gather from what the hon. Member has said that he does not appreciate the meaning of his own words, and I confess that I am in the same position myself. As I understand, these words are to be added at the end of Sub-section 2.

No; I propose to insert them in the first line of Sub-section 3.

Sub-section 3 runs thus—

"The check-weigher shall not be authorised in any way to impede or interrupt the working of the mine, or to interfere with the weighing, or with any of the workmen or with the management of the mine; but shall be authorised only to take such account as aforesaid, and the absence of the check-weigher shall not be a reason for interrupting or delaying the weighing."

The hon. Member proposes that the check-weigher, "by virtue of any provision in this Act or otherwise," shall not be authorized to do certain things. I can only say that the Amendment, as it stands, is unintelligible and unnecessary.

I do not propose to press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, inline 14, after "weighing," to insert—

"If the said check-weigher had notice of or reasonable ground to anticipate the intention to proceed with the weighing."

As the section at present stands, the check-weigher is authorized only to take an account, and his absence is not to be a reason for interrupting or delaying the weighing. In some parts of the country complaints are made that even where a check-weigher has been appointed or stationed under the Act, the practice is resorted to of "tipping" in his absence, and the weighing, conse- quently, goes on without his knowing anything about it. The object of my Amendment is to prevent that, and I hope its reasonableness will commend itself to the Home Secretary and to the Committee. When the coal is "tipped," I think it is only reasonable that it should be weighed at such times as the check-weigher might in the ordinary course of business be expected to be present. When there is occasion to weigh the coal at times when the check-weigher would not ordinarily be present, the manager should take the trouble to let him know that it is intended to proceed with "tipping." I am assured that in many cases the manager or one of his deputies gives orders to "tip" the coal 10 or 20 minutes before the usual time, and when the check-weigher comes up he finds that a great many tons of coal have been already weighed. This not only causes him to miss a portion of his duty, but it gives rise to a feeling of doubt and suspicion in the minds of the men. Then, again, on days when the colliery is not working the same thing is practised. The check-weigher is informed in the morning that no coal will be "tipped" that day; but when he goos to the pit on the following day he finds that a great deal of coal has been "tipped," and that weighing has taken place in his absence. If he makes any complaint he is told that his interference is a piece of impudence rendering him liable to be dismissed. Unless, therefore, the check-weigher is hedged around with some protection under the provisions of this Bill in this respect, the measure itself will be of very little use to the collieries in some districts. I beg to move the Amendment which appears on the Paper in my name.

Amendment proposed,

In page 6, line 14, after "weighing," insert "if the said check-weigher had notice of or reasonable ground to anticipate the intention to proceed with the weighing."—( Mr. Arthur O'Connor. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

It appears to me that this Amendment is quite unnecessary. So far as I know there has never been any case in which a difficulty has arisen in consequence of the check-weigher not knowing that the weighing was going on. It is quite obvious that it would be in the power of the check-weigher, if this Amendment were adopted, to interfere very prejudicially with the working of the pit. He would only have to keep himself out of the way, and not to give notice of his whereabouts, in order to prevent any weighing from going on at all.

I do not think the insertion of the words proposed by the hon. Member for East Donegal could possibly bring about such a result as that which is anticipated by the hon. Member for Preston. On the contrary, I believe the adoption of the Amendment would be of very great service indeed. It is quite conceivable that there might be many instances of the kind suggested by the hon. Member who has moved the Amendment. The insertion of these words would do no harm to anyone; but they might do a great deal of good, and secure the safety and protection of the collieries. I would, therefore, ask the Committee to accept them.

I desire to point out to the hon. Member for Preston that what he anticipates is perfectly impossible under the Amendment as I have worded it, because, as it stands, it provides that the check-weigher must have had notice of or reasonable ground to anticipate the intention to proceed with the weighing. Of course, if he neglects his duty, and absents himself from the weighing, the coalowner or manager would clearly be discharged from all responsibility.

I confess that what fell from the hon. Member for Preston seems to me to be a conclusive argument against this Amendment. If any check-weigher chose to stop away, he might, under this provision, stop the entire work of the colliery. On the other hand, I think there is no ground to fear that there would be any disposition to watch for the absence of the check-weigher, in order that the weighing might be proceeded with, to some extent surreptitiously. If the Amendment would prevent that object, and that object alone, I should be inclined to accept it; but some doubt certainly occurs to my mind as to what the effect would be on the supposition that the check-weigher is off, playing, for a week. It might not be possible, under such circumstances, to ascertain where he was, so as to give him notice, and therefore it might be difficult to say that he had "had notice or reasonable ground to anticipate the intention to proceed with the weighing." I confess that the words of the Amendment might give rise to difficulty; but, as far as I am concerned, I should be prepared to accept them in the hope that it may be possible to amend them.

I feel bound to oppose the Amendment, and I hope that the Government will not be induced to accept it. Very great difficulty might arise, in the case of an important mine, where a large number of tons of coal are being drawn in the course of a single day, because under such a provision, if the check-weigher were to absent himself from the pit, and not be there to check the weight, the whole work of the mine might be hindered.

I do not think that there ought to be any attempt to draw or rather to dispose of the coals drawn out of the mine in the absence of the check-weigher, or to remove coal in regard to the drawing of which the check-weigher has received no notice. This is the only protection which the colliers will get under the Bill, and therefore I hope the Home Secretary will see his way to accept the Amendment. I know, of my own experience, that a colliery may have been idle, and the check-weigher consequently away, when a large ship has come in, and the managers have been compelled to draw coal out of the mine before the check-weigher could be communicated with. It is to provide against the possibility of an occurrence of that kind that this Amendment has been proposed.

I think the Committee are placed in a position of some difficulty in having to discuss these words at the present moment. At the conference between the owners and the workmen this clause was very carefully discussed, and no difficulty of this kind was ever suggested. If the case had been raised words might have been inserted which would have avoided the difficulties apprehended from those now suggested.

In answer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Preston, I may say that in supporting the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for East Donegal I did not understand that I was trenching in any way upon the principle which was accepted at the conference between the workmen and the coalowners. I should be the last man in the world to attempt to do anything of the kind, and if I thought that this Amendment interfered with any arrangement which has been come to between the coalowners and the workmen I would not have given my support to it.

I fully accept the principle of the Amendment. I think it is quite clear that no weighing should be going on if the check-weigher is not there; but if my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary consents to accept these words, I hope he will look carefully over them before the Report stage, because, as they stand now, they do not appear to me to be very clear, but, on the contrary, they are open to some ambiguity. First of all, there is notice to be given to the check-weigher. What is the nature of the notice to be given to him? If the colliery ceases work on Thursday night, and it is not intended to draw coal on the following day, but in the meantime some large vessels come in, which render it necessary that coal should be drawn, what would be the course which must be pursued? The men who would have received notice that the colliery would not be at work would be called early in the morning, and the check-weigher also would receive a similar notice on the previous evening. If it was decided subsequently to work the colliery it would be necessary to collect the men together in the way I have described; but what sort of notice must be given to the check-weigher? Would it be sufficient to leave a notice at his house? Then, again, the hon. Member's Amendment says — "If the said check-weigher had notice or reasonable ground to anticipate the intention to proceed with the weighing." The fact that certain large steamers had come into the river might be noticed in the newspapers; would that be regarded as "reasonable ground to anticipate the intention to proceed with the weighing?" What we ought to do is to make the Bill perfectly clear; and, therefore, if we are to accept the principle of this Amendment, which is, I think, perfectly correct, I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will not pledge himself to the absolute words, but will look carefully over them before the provision is finally settled.

I entirely sympathize with the object of this Amendment, but I confess that the exact words are open to some modification, and I therefore hope that the hon. Member for East Donegal will withdraw the Amendment for the present, seeing that we are all agreed as to the principle, so that the matter may be dealt with on the Report stage, when words may be introduced to give effect to the object of the Amendment. I think the hon. Member himself will see that there is some little ambiguity in regard to the words "unless there is reasonable ground to anticipate." These words would seem to imply that some previous communication had been conveyed to the check-weigher.

I am perfectly satisfied with the assurance which has been given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, coupled with his recognition of the reasonableness of my Amendment. I have no doubt that by the time the Report stage is reached, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to suggest words that will carry out the object of the Amendment. I may add, with regard to the conference between the coalowners and the workmen, which has been alluded to by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson), that I was not a member of that conference, and was no party to any arrangements that were then come to.

I hope the hon. Member will understand that I had no intention of accusing him of a breach of faith.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move the addition to the sub-section of the following Proviso:—

"Provided always, that nothing in this section shall prevent a check-weigher giving to any workman an account of the mineral gotten by him, or information with respect to the weighing machine, or the taring of the tubs or trams, or with respect to any other matter within the scope of his duties as check-weigher, so always, nevertheless, that the working of the mine be not interrupted or impeded."

I, myself, certainly attach most importance to those clauses of the Bill which relate to the safety of the mine and of the men, and I shall be glad to reach those clauses as soon as possible. At the same time, this is a matter which, although subordinate, is of much importance, and one of very great interest and moment to the miners generally. It relates to the question of the position and status of the check-weigher. In some parts of the country there has been a good deal of bickering and dissatisfaction with regard to the power of the check-weigher, although in the North of England, particularly in Durham and Northumberland, I have known very few cases of disagreement. The coalowners there have generally accepted the provisions of the Bill, in regard to the treatment of the men, in a very reasonable spirit. The Times, in an article yesterday, characterized by great fairness on the whole, although I do not agree with its views, spoke of the unique position of the cheek-weigher as an officer appointed by the men to supervise the employers. Now, that is not at all what the check-weigher is appointed to do. He is appointed to look after the interests of the men; and though it might be possible, as was stated a short time ago by the hon. Member for the Penrith Division of Cumberland (Mr. J. W. Lowther), for a man to make himself unnecessarily obnoxious to his employers, still the employer would have ample protection. He would have his own representative, who would be present at the weighing, and the chief, if not the only concern of the miners, is to secure the services of some person who will look after their interest. Now, in some cases — not in many, I admit, because I have already stated that the position of the check-weigher is generally accepted and recognized by the coalowner—but in some cases there is somewhat too great a tendency to regard the whole colliery and its surroundings as the property of the coalowner, without paying any regard to the interests of the men. I think it ought to be considered that the mineral itself is not really the property of the coalowner until he has paid the men for having produced it. The object of my Amendment is, in fact, to recognize the position of the check-weigher, and to make him the chief agent and repre- sentative of the miners, acting in that capacity as a check upon the coal-owners. I have no desire to introduce any revolutionary principle, and the Amendment I propose will not do so. I may say that I have received an intimation from the Home Secretary that he is prepared to accept the Amendment. I am very glad that that is so, and it is not necessary that I should trespass further on the time of the Committee. I will only make this further remark—that in the Amendments we are proposing in this quarter we have no desire to preclude discussion in the House of Commons as to the terms of the settlement arrived at between the coalowners and the workmen. I should be the last person to do anything of the kind. No doubt, all these matters are fairly open for the consideration of other Members of the House; but I think the fact that practical men, on both sides, have agreed to this proposal ought to strongly recommend its adoption to the Committee.

Amendment proposed,

In page 6, line 14, after "weighing," insert—"Provided always, that nothing in this section shall prevent a check-weigher giving to any workman an account of the mineral gotten by him, or information with respect to the weighing machine, or the taring of the tubs or trams, or with respect to any other matter within the scope of his duties as check-weigher, so always, nevertheless, that the working of the mine be not interrupted or impeded."—( Mr. Burt. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

I notice that the words contained in the Amendment of the hon. Member who has just spoken are also contained in the Amendment of which Notice has been given by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) behind me, who was a party, I believe, to the agreement which was come to on this subject. I, therefore, have not the slightest hesitation in accepting the Amendment, although I am bound to say to the hon. Member that the clause has the proposed effect already, as, I think, any lawyer in the House will admit. Anyone appointed to check the weight on the part of the workmen would, as a matter of course, tell his employers what the weight was.

Question put, and agreed to.

I have now to move, after Sub-section 3, to insert the following Proviso:—

"Provided that this clause shall not prevent a check-weigher from being or acting as secretary to any committee or body of workmen in the mine."

This is a very small Amendment; but I trust that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary will be able to accept it, because I am aware that in some parts of the country this sort of thing has happened. In South Wales, for instance, in one or two cases a check - weigher has been dismissed from that position solely, and upon no other ground, than that he had accepted an appointment as secretary or treasurer to the workmen employed in the mine, the reason for the dismissal being that such a position might involve an interference with the working of the mine. Now, that seems to me to be a very hard case. The check-weigher is appointed by the men, and there are many things he might do, such as acting as secretary to a sick fund, and other little matters of that sort, which would be for the interest of the men, whose confidence he possesses. A contrary opinion, however, has been come to by some of the coalowners in South Wales, who, I am informed, have discharged from their employment men who, in addition to being check-weighers, have filled other positions in the interest of the miners, and the magistrates have upheld that decision, and justified the coalowners in discharging men under such circumstances, on the ground that the duty of a check-weigher is simply to weigh the coal, and to give in an account. I have no doubt the Home Secretary will tell the Committee that the appointment of a check-weigher as secretary to the miners is not a contravention of this part of the section; but, unfortunately, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is sitting here in the House of Commons, and he is not down in my part of the country, where the magistrates, who have power to deal with the matter, are too much inclined to decide against the men and in favour of the masters. If the Committee consent to insert in the clause this Proviso that a check-weigher shall not be prevented from acting as secretary to any committee or body of workmen in the mine, I do not think the justices would be prepared to act in contravention of what then they would clearly understand to be the law.

Amendment proposed,

In page 6, line 14, after subsection (3), insert — "Provided that this clause shall not prevent a check-weigher from being or acting as secretary to any committee or body of workmen in the mine."—( Mr. C. H. James. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

I wish to say that in very many cases the person selected as check-weigher is not selected because he happens to know the business of coal - mining, as any ordinary collier would know it, but because he can write and add up figures, and generally because he is a man who is looked up to and trusted by the colliers—a man who is likely to be of great use and value to them. He is very often used for the purpose of convening meetings, for writing out notices, and, to a great extent, he acts as the guide, counsellor, and friend of the miners. It has happened, undoubtedly, in several cases, and notably in South Wales, that men have been got rid of from the position of check-weigher because it has been held that they have interfered, or were likely to interfere, with the discipline of the mine by reason of their connection with the men employed in the mine. Under such circumstances, it certainly appears to be not unreasonable that some words or other should be inserted in the Bill to show that it is the intention of Parliament that these men are not to be interfered with, either by the magistrates or by the coalowners, on account of their action as officials connected with any organization which may be established among the colliers, or because they happen to act as agents, secretaries, or anything of that sort. I do not know whether I myself should feel inclined to advocate the precise form of words adopted by the hon. Member in this Amendment, because I think that, as the Amendment stands, the employment of the check-weigher would be limited to the right of acting "as secretary to any committee or body of workmen in the mine." Now, I think that although he might not be acting as secretary, he might be useful in many other capacities; but I admit that it is difficult to define any precise form of words which would cover the case. At the same time, I think there ought to be some words introduced into the Bill to show the relation of the check-weigher towards the men outside, and I think that in the case of a man being appointed to an office of trust by the miners, the mere fact of his being check-weigher should not of itself be sufficient ground for removing him.

In my opinion, the Amendment is very unsatisfactory and objectionable; and, therefore, I shall oppose it.

I object to this Amendment, in the first place, because I consider it to be wholly unnecessary. There is not a word in this Bill to prevent a check-weigher from being an acting secretary to the miners, or from accepting any other similar position with regard to that body. Then, why should we introduce here an Amendment which is merely surplusage? I think it would be most objectionable to say to any particular person—"Oh, you cannot be anything but secretary to the miners; you cannot even be treasurer, or anything beyond secretary to the mine." The Amendment says that "nothing in this clause shall prevent a check-weigher from being or acting as secretary to any committee, or body of workmen in the mine." There is nothing in the measure to prevent a cheek - weigher from acting in any capacity he pleases, outside the working of a mine, and I think it would be a great misfortune to insert unnecessary words which would only create difficulties.

After that expression of opinion on the part of the Home Secretary I will, with the leave of the House, withdraw the Amendment.

Before the Amendment is withdrawn I hope the Committee will allow me to say that I have had considerable experience in regard to check-weighing cases; and, therefore, I should like to say a word upon what I cannot help regarding as a very important matter. I quite agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary that there is nothing in this measure to prevent a check-weigher from fulfilling any function in connection with the miners, or with trades unions; but there are words in the Bill which, in my humble judgment, although, in deference to the opi- nion of those who are better able to form a judgment than myself, I have withdrawn the Amendments which I proposed to submit for the purpose of dealing with them — there are words in the Bill of a very questionable nature, and likely to give rise to disputes in future. Let me call attention to the words of the 3rd sub-section of this clause, in page 6, which says—

"The check-weigher shall not be authorised in any way to impede or interrupt the working of the mine, or to interfere with the weighing, or with any of the workmen, or with the management of the mine."

Cases have occurred in my experience, speaking as counsel, in which a check-weigher has been removed by the Justices at Petty Sessions for having exercised his functions as secretary to the miners, and in most cases he has been removed because, in some way or other, he had advocated in his position of check-weigher the interests of the men. It was held by the magistrates, and their decision has been upheld by the Queen's Bench Division, that such an interference on his part came within the words of the existing Act of Parliament—namely, "impeding or interfering with the working of the mine, or otherwise misconducting himself." Now, what I want to impress upon the Home Secretary is this—that a man may be summoned before the magistrates for interfering with the working of the mine, because he may have taken some action at the pit-mouth which may be regarded with displeasure by the owners or manager, and the magistrates may thereupon hold that he has thereby been interfering with the workmen, and has, consequently, brought himself within the intent of the Statute, so as to justify his removal. If some such qualifying words as those suggested by my hon. Friend were put in—and I cannot say that I approve of them altogether, because I do not think that they are sufficiently explicit—instead of being open to the magistrates to discharge the check-weigher for an alleged offence of this kind, words of this character inserted in the Bill would justify the check-weigher in saying—"I was merely exercising my functions as an official of the mine." I can assure the Home Secretary that I am not speaking without considerable experience of this matter. I know the grievance which has been felt in relation to the existing provisions of the Act of Parliament, and I know that, under the ambiguity of the words which now exist, advantage has been taken by the coalowners to prevent a check-weigher from fulfilling duties of this kind. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to remind him that it is almost the universal rule for a check-weigher to be an official of some kind connected with the trades unions of the miners. I quite agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) and the hon. Member for the Barnard Castle Division of Durham (Sir Joseph Pease) that the best feeling subsists between the employers and the miners in the County of Durham; but I am also aware that there are instances, in other localities, in which the same feeling does not exist. Therefore, I would respectfully suggest to the Home Secretary the propriety of considering whether some alteration in this section, as it now stands, might not be satisfactorily made before the Bill is finally passed.

I trust that the Home Secretary will accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Atherley-Jones), because I can assure him that, as far as the existing Act is concerned, we have had several instances such as he has mentioned in Yorkshire, and I think it is most desirable that words should be introduced to limit the interference of the magistrates.

I quite appreciate the view of the Home Secretary when he said that there are no words in this measure which prevent a check-weigher from acting as secretary, or fulfilling any other duties in connection with the miners. But there were no such words in the old Act, and, nevertheless, the magistrates in South Wales have held that when a check-weigher has been acting as secretary of a miners' committee he was improperly interfering with the working of the mine, and they have not only ordered that he should be removed, but, as a matter of fact, he was removed. Further than that, the opinion of a very eminent counsel in London was asked upon the matter, and he upheld the decision of the magistrates. Therefore, I think that, if pos- sible, it is desirable that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should introduce some express words into this clause to prevent a man from being removed from the position of check-weigher because he has acted as secretary to a body of working miners. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman can see his way to do this, I can assure him that the miners will be very thankful indeed.

My objection to the Amendment is that it deals with a very small point, and that it would not accomplish the object which the hon. Member has in view. The duties of a check-weigher are methodical duties, and, speaking from experience, I am able to say that much of the satisfactory working of the mine depends upon the way in which he discharges his duties. As a matter of fact, the working of the mine depends mainly upon the underground manager and the check-weigher, and if the latter be a mischievous man, he may so order matters as to give rise to controversies and agitations inimical to the interests both of the employers and the men. Not only would he be able to bring about incessant squabbles, but he might seriously injure the good working of the mine. There ought always to be the most complete confidence between the masters and the men, and I think it would be most unwise to place power in the hands of those who represent the interests of the working miners to create difficulties in regard to the carrying on of the work. The working miners are, I think, among the most respectable working population in the country. There are at the present moment some 400,000 or 500,000 men employed underground, and I believe they constitute a class who are less brought before the magistrates than any other body of working men. No doubt, it is our duty, in conducting legislation of this kind, to do all we can to secure the safety and protection of the workmen, but it must be obvious that the very worst way of doing that would be to create difficulties between the masters and the workmen. I have on many occasions accepted a check-weigher nominated by the miners, and I have invariably found that he has been as conscientious a weigher for the masters as for the men. On no occasion has there been the slightest necessity for charging him with obstructing the work- ing of the mine. Nor, on the other hand, have I found that he has been interfered with in the discharge of his duties by the ordinary officials of the mine. Under these circumstances, I think it is not to the interests of the miners themselves to have these difficulties raised, especially when it may result in carrying the disputed points before the magistrates. I would, therefore, appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil to withdraw the Amendment.

After the conversation which has occurred I do not think I should be justified in pressing the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I have now to move the omission of Sub-section 4, in order to insert—

"If the check-weigher, miners' agent, or the check-weigh committee desire the removal of the manager or other colliery official, on the ground that the said manager or official has impeded or in any way interrupted the check-weigher in the proper discharge of his duties, or, in the check-weigher's absence altered, or caused to be altered, the weighing-machine, or interfered with the tare weight, or done anything detrimental to the interests of the men employed at the colliery, they may complain to a court of summary jurisdiction, who, if of opinion that the check-weigher, miners' agent, or check-weigh committee show sufficient primâ facie ground for the removal of the manager or such official, shall call on the manager or official to show cause against their removal."

I confess, that in moving this Amendment, the fact that the acceptance by the Government of an earlier Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt), which was the result of an agreement come to at the conference between the employers and the workmen, has considerably modified the necessity for this Amendment. Still, there are other points in the Amendment to which I would like to call the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary and the Government. In order to meet the case in the fullest manner, it is necessary that I should state what the case is, so as to explain what it is that we complain of. In a certain mine—I am not alluding now to the Rhondda Valley, but to a mine outside—in a certain mine it was found that the weighing machines were not in proper order, and that they had been weighing heavily against the men. The miners asked the manager to consent that someone should be employed to put the machine in proper order, and one of "Pulley's men," as they are generally called, came down to put it in a proper condition. Nevertheless, the very day after the machine was supposed to have been put in order, when the check-weigher went to look after the weighing, he found that the machine during the night-time had been tampered with, and that it was again not properly weighing the coal produced by the men. He made a report of the circumstance, and the result was that the colliery was allowed to remain idle for three days. I was asked by the men to advise them in the matter, and I recommended that they should appeal to the authorities and ask for the assistance of the Inspector of Weights and Measures of the district; but nothing could be done until the mine had laid idle for three days, resulting in a heavy loss of wages to the poor men employed in it. At the end of that time the machine was put right. Under these circumstances, I trust the Government will see the necessity for enacting some stringent provision in reference to this matter. I am quite prepared to admit that my objection to the clause, as it originally stood, has been very much modified by the acceptance on the part of the Government of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth. Still if I am not entitled to ask that, if in the absence of the check-weigher, the manager, or any official of the mine, should interfere with the gear or with the machine, and place it in such a condition as to impede its proper working, or if the check-weigher, miners' agent, or check-weighing committee desire the removal of the manager, or other colliery official, on the ground that the check-weigher has been interrupted in the proper discharge of his duties, the check-weigher shall be justified in calling on such manager or official to show cause why he should not be removed. What I am entitled to, and what I suggest is, that any action of this kind on the part of the manager, or any other colliery official, should be held to be an offence against the law. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared to meet me in that matter, I shall be quite ready to withdraw the Amendment; but, otherwise, I feel that I am fully entitled to press it.

I think it is perfectly clear that if the manager of the mine does what the hon. Member has just suggested—namely, fraudulently alter the weight, he commits a grave criminal offence, and I can hardly think that the existing Criminal Law is not sufficient to meet the case; but, if not, I am strongly inclined to make it an offence under this Act. And if the hon. Member will allow the Amendment to stand over, I will satisfy myself on the point, and if it is not already met by the existing law I shall be glad to provide for it here. The conduct of the manager ought to be just as much an offence under this Act as it is in the existing law; if the manager does not give proper facilities to the men under this Act à fortiori, he is guilty of conduct which ought to be reached in some way or other.

If this discussion is to continue the hon. Member for the Rhondda division of Glamorgan must at once move his Amendment.

Amendment proposed,

In page 6, line 15, to leave out Sub-section (4) and insert, "If the cheek-weigher, miners' agent, or the check-weigh committee desire the removal of the manager or other colliery official, on the ground that the said manager or official has impeded or in any way interrupted the check-weigher in the proper discharge of his duties, or, in the check-weigher's absence, altered, or caused to be altered, the weighing-machine, or interfered with the tare weight, or done anything detrimental to the interests of the men employed at the colliery, they may complain to a court of summary jurisdiction, who, if of opinion that the check-weigher, miners' agent, or check-weigh committee showed sufficient primâ facie ground for the removal of the manager, or said official, shall call on the manager or official to show cause against their removal."—[ Mr. W. Abraham. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

I wish to point out that this Amendment has for its object not to make that a crime that which was not so before, but to provide a cheap and ready resource for the men in case of need.

Supposing that such conduct as the Amendment is directed against exists, I agree that it ought to be made an offence against the Act by whomsoever committed. The offence of tampering with the weighing-machine is one which might be prosecuted by anyone. The hon. Member will find that the only prosecutions which require the sanction of the Inspector or the State are for what I may call vicarial offences.

I am quite satisfied with the assurance which has been given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I do not intend to press the Amendment I have placed on the Paper to a Division; but I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary whether it would not be possible for him to make some alteration in this clause so as to meet the objection I have indicated? I will give the Committee an instance of what I refer to. Not very long ago a check-weigher in Yorkshire was prosecuted under the existing Statute, because he had convened a meeting of the miners for the purpose of limiting the output of a mine. One of the charges also was that he had communicated to the men the weight made. The case came before the magistrates and the man was removed; it afterwards went before the Court of Queen's Bench, which upheld the decision of the magistrates, because the man had tried to stop the men working or doing the full measure of work—it was held that in this way he came within the words "impeding or interrupting the working of the mine." That seems to me to be a case very strongly in point, and it seems to me that still greater force is given to the effect of it by the words in the clause, "interfering with the workmen." I quite agree that it is not well to introduce bones of contention into this Bill or any Act of Parliament; but, at the same time, I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this is the effect of the words "interfering with the workmen." I think these words are unnecessary, inasmuch as if a man is to be prosecuted it can be done for interference, it can be done without the intervention of this Act. I think these words are much to be deprecated, and I trust that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary will be able to accept the Amendment which I beg to move.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 18, leave out from "or" to "himself," in line 21.—( Mr. Atherley-Jones. )

I regret that I cannot agree to the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for North-West Durham. This clause is for the purpose of protecting the check-weigher in the performance of his duty, but, at the same time, to prevent him from using his position in the mine for any purpose except that for which he is employed. I think that if you put a man into this position you should strictly limit him to the specific duty which he is appointed to discharge.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

proposed an Amendment, in page 6, line 19, to insert words providing against the disclosure by any person whatever of the total weight or quantity of the output at the mine, always excepting that of informing the person or persons who may employ him, of the total weight or quantity he has raised by his own labour individually.

Amendment proposed,

In line 19, after "of the mine," insert "or has made known to any person the weight or quantity of output at the mine, beyond informing each person by whom he is employed the weight or quantity of his individual output."—( Mr. Thomas Blake. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

I do not see any objection to these words, if it is the pleasure of the Committee that they should be inserted, because they only carry out what is the intention of the Bill. Many coalowners object to the output of their mines being known, and Clause 34 protects the owner of the mine from having the output published. Hon. Members will see that although the output of the mine has to be returned to the Secretary of State, it is not to be published without the owner's consent. I think, therefore, that this is a very proper protection, both to lessees and coalowners.

I think the words proposed by the hon. Member are very objectionable, and ought not to be inserted.

We have now been more than two hours discussing this clause, which, no doubt, reasonably excites great interest, inasmuch as it relates to the check-weighman. This Amendment opens up another phase of the subject, and must inevitably lead to a long discussion. I hope it will be withdrawn, therefore; and I would further add I doubt if it would be wise to insert any Amendment in this delicate matter, excepting that agreed upon between the hon. Member for Morpeth and the hon. Member for Preston as representatives.

I protest against this Amendment being withdrawn. I think the doctrine a very dangerous one, that certain persons are to meet in the conference room and agree to certain lines, and that everyone else is to be precluded from getting any other Amendment accepted. Not that I have any Amendment to propose; but I point out that this Amendment is inconsistent with what the Government has agreed to. The Amendment proposes to prevent what the Committee has already decided may be done—namely, that information shall be furnished to each man, not only with regard to himself, but others.

I wish to point out to the hon. Member (Mr. Blake) that it is of no use moving this Amendment. There are 400 or 500 men, say, in a mine, and any one of them can get at the secret of the output by adding the weights together after he has seen his neighbour or after someone has counted the waggons filled. Secrets are only secrets as long as they are kept; and 60 per cent of the miners have wives through whom the information would soon get abroad if there was any reason for the information being made public.

I think, Mr. Courtney, it would be a very pernicious system if every man were to know how much coal is put out by his fellow workman. If one man earned 7 s. a-day and another less it would lead to a bad feeling if it were communicated to the other work- man; for that reason I think the Amendment is a correct one, and I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will adhere to the position he has taken up with regard to it.

In order to meet what appears to me to be the wish of the Committee, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. TOMLINSON the following Amendments made:—In page 6, line 20, leave out "either," after "account," insert "or giving such imformation;" and in line 21, leave out "or otherwise misconducted himself."

Amendment proposed,

In page 6, line 31, after Sub-section (5) insert "a person who shall be so removed shall be disqualified to act as check-weigher for any period mentioned in the order made to remove him not exceeding one year."—( Mr. Tomlinson. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

I trust the Home Secretary will not accept this Amendment. It is, in my opinion, sufficient punishment for the check-weigher to be removed. I will not, however, argue the question, nor do I say that the proposal is a departure from what has been agreed upon, but simply express my opinion that it would be better not to put in the words.

I am of opinion that this Amendment is unnecessary, and think it would be better to leave the matter to be settled by the men themselves.

I hope the hon. Member will press his Amendment. It seems to me ridiculous that a man who misconducts himself should be dismissed, or ordered to be removed from his post, and that directly afterwards he is to be reappointed by the men in exactly the same position as he was in before—not in the same mine perhaps, but in another mine. I know a case where an owner has 10 mines at a very short distance from each other; it may be that differences of opinion will arise, and, supposing the check-weigher is dismissed by the magistrate, the men, in order to spite the master, may immediately appoint him to another of his mines in the neighbourhood. For that reason, I trust the hon. Member for Preston will press his Amendment, which I shall feel it my duty to support.

I am of opinion that a single removal would be ample punishment for the check-weigher; but, at the same time, I think there is something in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston. It is desirable that the proprietor should not have a man forced upon him who is not acceptable to him, and I therefore propose that words should be introduced which would prevent the re-appointment of the man to the same mine, or a mine belonging to the same employer.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15 (Remuneration of check-weigher).

Amendment proposed,

In page 7, leave ont sub-section (1), and insert "And further, in all cases where a check-weigher has been appointed by the majority of the colliers working in the mine, and has acted as such, he may recover from any collier working in such mine his proportion of the check-weigher's wages or recompense, notwithstanding that any collier or colliers may have left the colliery, or others have entered the same since the check-weigher's appointment, any rule of law or equity to the contrary notwithstanding.

"And further, it may be lawful for the owner or manager of any mine, when the men at the mine agree, to retain the agreed contribution of the colliers for the check-weigher, notwithstanding the provisions of the Acts relating to truck, and to pay and account for the same to the said check-weigher, or such person appointed by the workmen to receive the same."—( Mr. Burt. )

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

This Amendment now stands in the same position as the preceding clause. It was left at the conference to be re-drawn, and has been framed in a manner which meets our views.

I am sorry this agreement has been come to. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Morpeth, who represents a large constituency of miners, to agree with the representatives of the coalowners in a matter of this kind, because the organizations in Durham and Northumberland are in a position to protect themselves. But there are a great number of colliers who are not organized, and are a great deal more at the mercy of the owners than those who are. I can adduce cases where not only the check-weighers themselves have been injured or placed at a disadvantage, but where their relatives have had their wages reduced or their services altogether dispensed with. The words of the clause are merely permissive, and there is no provision for the protection of those who cannot take care of themselves. I think it is to be regretted that the hon. Member for Durham should have come to an agreement about this clause. I think the hon. Member has been betrayed into what is a mistaken course, and that it would have been better if he had championed the cause of the men as a whole, and not that portion of them whom he represents.

I recognize the industry with which the hon. Member for East Donegal has applied himself to this question affecting miners, and the sympathy he has shown with us in our efforts to carry this Bill, as well as with the miners who are not everywhere organized so well as they are in Durham and Northumberland. At the same time, I wish to point out that my hon. Friend does not in this instance understand what he is talking about. The Amendment which I now move, and which is likely to be accepted by the Government, is really an improvement in the interest of the working miners, and most of all in the interest of those who are not well organized, inasmuch as it deals with the question of the employer being empowered to make arrangements relating to the payment of the check-weigher.

No one is more disposed than myself to yield to the opinion of Gentlemen who have considered a question, and agreed as to what is best to be done. But I am unable to allow this Amendment to pass without expressing my firm dissent from the principle which it contains. This is a clause which will allow the majority of men in a mine to impose something on the minority against their will, and the principle seems to me to be wholly unsound. It may be that some of the men do not want to have a check-weigher, and would rather be without him; and it is unjust and unfair, in my opinion, to force him upon them. But the clause goes farther, and says that the check-weigher's wages may be recovered from men who have left the mine, "any rule of law or equity notwithstanding." These words mean that if 25 men vote for a check-weigher and 24 against it, the check-weigher must be appointed, and a proportion of his wages paid by the minority against their will. That seems to me to be a form of tyranny so insupportable that I cannot do otherwise than protest against the Amendment of the hon. Member.

Permit me to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether new labourers entering into employment at the mine would not do so with a full knowledge of the arrangements made.

No doubt every one would in theory be presumed to have read the rules; but in the case of a mine in South Wales, for instance, it would not be so in practice.

An hon. MEMBER: This clause was laid before Sir R. Assheton Cross last year, and it was passed into law. Under the law before it was altered it happened that there was often a cantankerous fellow who, although he had the benefit of the check-weigher, would not pay his share of the cost. When this question went before the Judge of the County Court he held that the bargain was one between so many people only, and the whole thing fell to the ground, because new people came into the mine and others went out. The old clause being found to be illusory, this clause was put into the Bill, and I am greatly surprised at the attitude taken up by the right hon. and learned Gentleman with regard to the Amendment before the Committee. The suggestion is that the clause makes the colliery a sort of Corporation. But that is what we want it to be. There are certain unwritten laws in all collieries, and everyone there knows whether he has to pay a check-weigher or not. I hope my hon. Friends near me will stand firm on this Amendment. Before the clause of last year was passed there was, in South Wales, a great deal of dissatisfaction in connection with this matter, but as soon as it was passed it was found to work with the greatest ease. I have never heard a word from either masters or men against the clause; instead of its being a grievance all opposition to it is removed, and the miners in South Wales are gratified at the clause having been passed. For these reasons I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division on his Amendment.

I think it is a mistake to suppose, as I understand it is supposed in some quarters, that this clause is objectionable to the miners in Scotland. On the contrary, I believe that they attach great importance to the clause, with the knowledge that the only way in which weight can be given to the decision of the check-weigher is by the whole of the men in the mine acting in concert.

The objection to this Amendment is not that the majority of the workmen should be allowed to have a check-weigher, but that instead of making his payment compulsory through the manager or owner it is merely optional. The responsibility for collecting his wages is thrown upon the man himself; but it ought to be provided that the owner should be compelled to deduct the wages, which is a system adopted in connection with school pence and in other cases. An hon. Member who spoke a short time ago said that the men in Scotland are satisfied with the clause. But I have letters which show that this is not so. I find that in two different cases the men appointed at the pit-mouth to collect the wages of the check-weigher were got rid of, so that the men were afraid, and ceased to have a check-weigher, because they could not collect his wages; and although it is true that under this Amendment it is lawful to the owner, where the men consent, to make a deduction for the check-weigher, it was only yesterday that I heard the manager of a mine laugh at the idea of collecting his wages. If the manager or owner has a grudge against the check-weigher he is in a position to injure, not only the check-weigher, but also those who collect his wages.

Question put, and agreed, to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16 (Application of Weights and Measures Act to weights, &c. used in mines.)

Under the existing Act all coal is hence- forward to be sold by weight; but it was only by a successful Division last night that we were able to strike out words from the Bill which would have given the Secretary of State powers of exemption which would have been extremely dangerous, I am informed that in the mining districts of Staffordshire and East Worcestershire wages are, in some cases, still not calculated by weight, but by a haphazard system of measurement. The coal in South Staffordshire is sold in barges; these barges are gauged, and instances have been brought before me of barges which were supposed to carry only 23 tons, carrying 40 tons and 42 tons. One effect of this is that the royalty owners suffer. Not that I can pretend to any tenderness for the owners of royalties, but in hopeful anticipation of royalties being some day subjected to rating for local purposes, it is most desirable that there should be accurate returns. In a sense, colliery owners are practically Boycotted by the merchants, who will not buy their coal if they refuse to recognize the system of exaggerated overweight. This practice has also a considerable bearing on local taxation, and especially where application is made for the loan of large sums of money on the security of mining property, as in the case of the South Staffordshire Mines Drainage Trust. It is admitted that the assessments which have been made since the trusts were created are illusory, and for the reasons I have stated it is most desirable that the amount of coal sold should be correctly given by the collieries. I can only say that no such record exists either on behalf of the men or on behalf of the colliery owner, and on that ground I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment which I propose to move, and which should be taken in connection with a consequential Amendment on the next page. My Amendment provides that all coal shall be sold by weight, but that the local custom shall be continued in so far as those following that custom shall come under the penalties of the Weights and Measures Act of 1878. I further propose, in a subsequent Amendment, that the Inspectors of Weights and Measures shall see that the provisions of this clause are carried out, and I hope the Home Secretary, in the interest of the coal proprietors and miners will see his way to accept the words of my Amendment.

Amendment proposed,

In page 7, line 17, after Sub-section (1), insert—"No sale of coal shall be made from any colliery other than by weight; but any person selling otherwise shall be subject to the general penalties of the Weights and Measures Act of 1878."—( Mr. P. Stanhope. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

; I cannot see my way to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member, and I do not gather from the hon. Member's speech the slightest reason why the sale of coal by measure should be prohibited. The hon. Member wishes to insert in the Bill a clause the effect of which is that coal shall only be sold by weight.

I beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon; my Amendment is that the local custom of gauging may be continued; but that the persons who continue to use it shall be subject to to the penalties of the Weights and Measures Act.

Then I say that the Amendment is drawn so as completely to conceal the object which the hon. Member has in view. I think this Amendment would be entirely out of place in this Bill, which is to regulate coal mining and not coal selling, and it would, besides, be impossible to deal with every subject connected with coal mines, for if we were to attempt to deal with such matters we should never get through the Bill at all.

Question put, and negatived.

I beg to move the next Amendment which stands in my name.

Amendment proposed,

In page 7, line 19, after the word "shall" insert the words "but without unnecessarily impeding or interrupting the working of the mine."—( Mr. Arthur O'Connor. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

I think the Amendment I have upon the Paper lower down which is intended to carry out the object the hon. Gentleman has in view carries out that object more completely.

Does the hon. Member withdraw his Amendment?

I am not unwilling to withdraw it; but I do not quite see the advantage of doing so.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

According to the clause as it now stands—

"An Inspector may, for the purposes of this section, without any authorisation of a Justice of the Peace, exercise at or in any mine, as respects all weights, measures, scales, balances, steelyards and weighing machines used or in the possession of any person for use at or in that mine all such powers as he exercise, if authorised in writing by a justice of the peace under Section 48 of the Weights and Measures Act, 1878."

Now, I propose to insert words which shall enable the miners, or any reasonable number of them, such as 10, upon a demand in writing, to secure the attendance of an Inspector that he may inspect all the weights and measures as to which they can show they have any ground to think are not in a satisfactory condition.

Amendment proposed,

In page 7, line 32, after the word "section" insert the words, "and on demand in writing to that effect, signed by not less than 10 miners, shall."—( Mr Arthur O'Connor. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

The proposed words can hardly be necessary, considering that the clause runs—

"And shall also make such inspection and examination at any other time in any case where he has reasonable cause to believe that there is in use at the mine any false or unjust weight, balance, scale, steelyard, or weighing machine."

It is a pity the hon. Gentleman does not read the Amendment before he rises to criticize it. If he had read it, he would have seen that under the clause as printed, an Inspector may, for the purposes of this section, exercise certain powers. My Amendment proposes that if a demand is made in writing by 10 or more miners, an Inspector not only may, but shall exercise this power—that is to say, the men will be able to secure that the power is put into operation. They have no such guarantee under the clause now.

I have misread the reference. I thought it was intended to come in at line 22.

I think the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) will find, on further consideration, that he has hardly selected the best place for these words. As I understand, his object is to make it compulsory that an Inspector should exercise certain powers if 10 or more miners ask him in writing to do so. The Weights and Measures Act refers to a somewhat different state of things to that contemplated in this section, and, therefore, to clothe an Inspector of coal mines with certain compulsory powers to go in buildings and open up machines without express authority would not be applicable. The clause supposes that an Inspector of weights and measures has reasonable cause to believe there is something wrong with the machines, and has already gone to the mines in order to inspect the weighing machines. The object of this sub-section is that it shall not be necessary for an Inspector to get the authorization of a Justice of the Peace, which, under the Weights and Measures Act, is necessary. An Inspector may, in the middle of the night, receive a message that something is going wrong, and he may not have time to apply to a Justice of the Peace for authority to inspect the machines. The hon. Member will see that it is quite out of place to bring 10 miners in here. The hypothesis is that an Inspector has gone to the mine on his own motion. If the hon. Members words come in anywhere, they come in Sub-section (2); but I think Sub-section (2) does more than he wishes. It provides that an Inspector, if he has reasonable cause to believe that there is in use any false or unjust weights or measures, may go and inspect them. The information of a single miner would make it the duty of an Inspector to go and inspect the machines. I cannot help thinking the words of the hon. Member would rather weaken the clause than otherwise.

I admit that, as a matter of drafting, my words do not come in happily here; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself is responsible for that. He may possibly not for the moment remember it, but some time ago I addressed a question to him with regard to directing an Inspector of Weights and Measures to go to a mine to test the weights and measures, without throwing the charge for moving his standard measures and for his travelling expenses upon those who required his presence. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in his reply, referred me to this section, saying that he had made provision in this section for the inspection of weights and measures. I quite admit the force of his observations with regard to the in-elegancy of the drafting, and I will not press my words at this point, or at any other point, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will consider between this and Report, whether he can make provision that miners who think they have ground for suspicion can require the attendance of an Inspector.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed,

In page 7, after line 42, insert the following Sub-section:—"(5.) The Inspector of Weights and Measures shall not, in fulfilling the duties required of him under this section, impede or interrupt the working of the mine, and shall make the examinations and inspections and exercise the authority reposed in him between the shifts."—( Mr. Wardle. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

I have an Amendment of a somewhat similar character. My Amendment differs from this, insomuch as it does not require that the examinations of Inspectors shall be made between shifts. I do not know that it would be in Order, if this Amendment is negatived, to propose mine; and therefore I propose to amend this Amendment by the omission of all the words after the words "working of the mine."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed,

In page 7, after line 42, insert the following Sub-section:—"(5.) The Inspector of Weights and Measures shall not, in fulfilling the duties required of him under this section, impede or obstruct the working of the mine."—( Mr. Tomlinson. )

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Single Shafts

Clause 17 (Prohibition of single shafts).

We have now reached the part of the Bill which deals with the question of safety, an important part of the Bill, and I rise to move that Clause 17 be amended by enlarging the distance between double shafts. At present the distance between the shafts need only be 10 feet. To my mind, that is quite inadequate, and absolutely worse than worthless, as, in the event of an explosion, the great danger is that both shafts would be wrecked. We had an illustration recently in my Division of Lanarkshire of the danger arising from a too close proximity of shafts. The Udston shafts are 40 yards apart. One shaft was so wrecked that there was no egress from, or ingress to, the mine by it. The other shaft was also partially wrecked, and several miners lost their lives. The explosion at this pit clearly showed that the shafts were in too close proximity. The great thing we have to consider is, to secure communication with the bank in the event of an explosion taking place. I admit the distance above ground is not of so much importance as that there should be a safe distance between the shafts underground. I am not, therefore, wedded to the distance of 50 yards above ground, and am prepared to accept a modification of my Amendment in that respect, provided distance underground is sufficient. I believe that 50 yards underground is insufficient. I would rather see between the two shafts a distance under ground of 200 yards, so that in the event of an explosion both shafts may not be wrecked, and there may be a greater chance of rescuing men entombed. At the time of the Udston explosion there were 170 men under ground, and in consequence of the partial wrecking of the second shaft, it was a considerable time before any of the miners were got out. Eventually we were able to rescue 112 men; but I thoroughly believe that if the shafts had only been 10 feet apart, as this clause will allow double shafts to be, we should not have saved the life of a single man. I think that is a proof that the provision of this Bill in respect to the distance between shafts is not advisable; therefore, I trust the Home Secretary will readily accept my Amendment. I quite understand it will be a very difficult matter to make provision by which all the collieries now in existence should be required to comply with the alteration I propose, and therefore I do not suggest that my Amendment should be retrospective in its action. I think that the words recommended by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottingham (Mr. J. E. Ellis) are worthy of acceptance—namely, that "after the passing of this Act, no such shafts or outlets shall be sunk nearer to one another at any point"—he says, 20 yards, but I am disposed to say 50. I would, however, not be averse if practical men in the House think it advisable, to reduce the distance say from 50 to 30 yards, provided there is a sufficient distance secured between the shafts under ground. That is the really important point I wish to impress on the Committee, and I hope the Home Secretary will give way in this matter. At any rate, if he does not do so, I feel so strongly upon this question that I shall certainly take the sense of the Committee upon it. I have no doubt that before the discussion closes we shall have considerable information thrown upon the question by practical men who are competent to advise us in the matter. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 14, to leave out the words "ten feet," and insert the words "fifty yards."—( Mr. Mason. )

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

This is a very difficult and technical mining question. My own view is, and I have a little knowledge of mining, that my hon. Friend goes too far. It is only a comparatively few years ago that two shafts were made obligatory, and that many owners had to lay out many thousands of pounds in sinking a second shaft. Now experience has shown that, as a rule, an explosion only affects one shaft. It is therefore very desirable, in order that you may communicate with the seams readily, and restore ventilation, that you should be able, within a comparatively short time, to travel from one shaft to another. If you put your two shafts 50 yards apart, it would take a long time to get through the 50 yards, even if the strata or the rubbish was of the softest character. My hon. Friend the Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottingham suggests that shafts should not be sunk nearer to one another at any point than 50 yards; but I think my hon. Friend opposite (Sir George Elliot), who knows a great deal more upon this subject than I do, will agree with me that the merits of the case would be met if it was provided that the shafts should be within 10 yards of each other, or say a reasonable distance of one another. It is not desirable that shafts should be too near, or that they should be too distant; it is very desirable you have two shafts within such a reasonable distance that you can easily communicate with one in the event of the other being wrecked.

I have endeavoured to obtain the best information I can upon this subject, and I think it right to point out that this clause simply continues the existing law. There never has been an explosion which has burst 10 feet of strata; the thing is unknown, and I believe it is impossible. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lanarkshire (Mr. Mason) desires that there shall not be the merest loop between the two shafts, in order that, in case of an explosion, there may be less chance of both shafts being injuriously affected. I am inclined to think that the distance between the shafts under ground should be somewhat considerable, that, in fact, it might be desirable to introduce into this Bill some clause providing that the shortest communication under ground should be 100 yards. To provide, however, that the distance between the shafts above ground shall be 50 yards is to impose a condition which is not only totally unnecessary, but which, in many cases, cannot possibly be complied with. I believe there are many cases in the country in which the owner has not got 50 yards of surface.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the Barnard Castle Division of Durham (Sir Joseph Pease), that this is a highly technical matter; and I should not have ventured to propose an Amendment respecting it if I had had no knowledge of mining. Having regard to the increased depth of the mines, and the increase of the number of men engaged in working them, I think it is essentially necessary to increase materially the distance be- tween the two shafts. I do not quite understand the position in which we are standing. The hon. Gentleman below me (Mr. Mason) has mentioned 50 yards; I, in my Amendment, suggest 20 yards; and the hon. Baronet (Sir Joseph Pease) has suggested 10 yards. I do not know whether the Government are in a position to accept the suggestion of the hon. Baronet. I feel so strongly on this matter that if the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mason) is the only one before us, I shall move to amend the Amendment by inserting 20 yards, instead of 50. Would it be in order for me to move my Amendment—namely, that—

"After the passing of this Bill, no such shafts or outlets shall be sunk nearer to one another at any point than twenty yards?"

It would be quite in Order to insert such a Proviso; but the first question put will be "that 10 feet stand part of the clause." If that is rejected, and it is moved to insert "fifty yards," then the hon. Member can move to amend the Amendment by substituting "twenty" for "fifty."

It must be borne in mind that explosions very often affect not only the mines, but the machinery for winding, and if the two shafts are within 10 feet of each other the probability is that, in case of explosion, the winding gear in both shafts will be absolutely destroyed. If you allow 20 yards between the shafts there is a greater chance that the winding machinery in one of the shafts, at all events, may remain uninjured, and to that extent you contribute to the safety of the men in the mine. I do not want to detain the Committee upon this very technical matter. I, however, entertain so strong a feeling on the matter that I shall certainly go to a Division if the Home Secretary is not prepared, as I trust he is, to meet our views.

Ten feet is impossible; indeed, I think the idea originated from little shallow mines where no explosions take place. I think we should save time if we agreed at once to make it 10 or 15 yards. I would not go beyond 15 yards.

I quite agree with my hon. Friend (Sir George Elliot), that 15 yards would be a suitable distance to place as a maximum in the Bill.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary will remember that in reference to this subsection I put a question some time ago, in reply to which he promised to cause inquiry to be made as to whether it was necessary to have, in the case of any of the pits of Ireland, a second shaft sunk. Perhaps he will say what the result of his inquiry is?

Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary will allow me as one who has been frequently sent down by the Government to examine into mining accidents, to urge upon him the opinion which has been expressed by the hon. Baronet (Sir George Elliot). It is certainly advisable not to have shafts at too great a distance, and it is equally advisable not to have them too near. Ten or 15 yards is the minimum which will satisfy the fears of the miners.

I invited the expression of opinion of practical men. I am quite willing to accept 15 yards; but we must take care the clause only applies to the future.

By "the future" I presume the right hon. and learned Gentleman means that the section is not to apply to existing pits.

Of course, existing shafts which comply with the present law must not be shut up.

I am quite prepared to acquiesce in the suggestion that the distance between the shafts above ground shall be 15 yards, provided that the Home Secretary will give us an assurance that the distance under ground will be greater; because if there is direct communication between the two shafts under ground, 15 yards would be absolutely worthless.

I have already intimated from the best information I have been able to obtain, that 50 yards was not a sufficient distance between the shafts under ground. I invited the opinion of practical men. I should be disposed to introduce a clause if practical men think it desirable, providing that the shortest distance between the shafts under ground shall be more than 50 yards.

I trust the Home Secretary will be able to see his way to exempt Ireland from the operation of this section, which requires that there shall be two shafts to a mine.

I have great difficulty in hearing the hon. Gentleman; but do I understand him to desire that Ireland shall be exempted from this clause?

Yes; because there is no fire-damp in the Irish coal mines.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman promised me in reply to a question, that he would cause special inquiries to be made by an Inspector with a view to decide whether it was necessary to enforce the provisions of this section in Ireland.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary seems to think that the distance between the shafts under ground should be more than 50 yards. I think that 50 yards is too great a distance, and I see nothing at all to endanger the safety of the men if the shafts are 15 yards distant with a direct communication. We must remember that the initial difficulty in the case of explosion is to get communication between the shafts, and the shorter you can make the distance between the shafts with safety the better. I think 15 yards is sufficient.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 14, to leave out the words "ten feet," and insert the words "fifteen yards."

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

Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman decided to exempt Ireland from the operation of the section?

I am bound to say that when drafting the clause the exempting of Ireland from the operation of the clause was not present to my mind; but I will direct inquiry into the facts. If the hon. Gentleman will postpone any Amendment on the subject until the Report stage, I shall be obliged.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to say that the points are these—There is practically no fire damp in Ireland, and there is very little other danger attending collieries. The principal expense connected with shafts is on account of pumping; having regard to the magnitude of the undertaking this expense is excessive.

I do not think it is at all necessary to make exemptions in the case of mines. Anyone who has any experience of mining knows that there is considerable danger in all mines, even in those which are the least fiery.

There is no such question before the Committee. The point has been submitted for consideration only.

I understand that if this Amendment is accepted, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will, on Report, propose that the operation of the section be limited so as not to apply to existing shafts or to prohibit deepening existing shafts.

Yes.

Question put, and negatived.

Question, "That the words 'fifteen yards' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

The Amendment which I now move appears a small one, but it is a very important one. I propose to leave out "four" in line 15, and insert "five," and to leave out "three" inline 15, and insert "six." This, as hon. Members will see, has reference to the communication between the shafts. The present area of that communication by this Bill will be 12 feet, my Amendment would enlarge it to 30 feet. I attach very great importance to this. I referred a moment ago to the very increased depth of the shaft, and the much larger number of men employed in the pits. The object of the Amendment is, of course, to allow of a swift passage for a body of men in case of explosion. If you have now 500 men to pass in a certain time along a particular way, whereas you had only a few years ago 200 men, everyone will see that the larger the area of communication the greater the chance of escape. If hon. Members were in a mine at the time of an explosion they would readily see the effect of my Amendment would be to increase very greatly the chances of escape. It may, perhaps, be said that the expense of increasing the area of communication from 12 feet to 30 feet would be very considerable. As a mine owner, I would allow no expense to stand in the way of increasing the chances of escape. I trust the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary will see his way to accept this Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 15, to leave out the word "four," and insert the word "five."—( Mr. J. E. Ellis. )

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

I think the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. E. Ellis) forgets that the doors will have to be equally large, and that, therefore, the danger from explosion will be increased than otherwise.

. I think this is a matter which might be regulated by the Government Inspector and the managers of the collieries.

We must clearly understand what is being done. My hon. Friend (Mr. J. E. Ellis) proposes that there should be a clear space of 30 square feet, instead of a clear space, according to the Bill, of 12 feet. Of course, the object of my hon. Friend is to increase the chances of escape; but I very much doubt whether this Amendment will effect that object. We must recollect that all mines are not alike. The height and width of the wallings and shafts vary so much that it is very difficult to lay down a general rule. I agree with the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir George Elliot), that it is better that the Government Inspector and the owner of the mine should have the power to enlarge the area of communication wherever it is convenient.

I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary will see his way to accept the proposal of my hon. Friend (Mr. J. E. Ellis).

I cannot help thinking that in some cases, owing to the nature of the strata, it will be found impossible to construct so large a passage as is proposed.

As a very large mine owner, I must deprecate a discussion of this kind. I think these matters ought to be left entirely in the hands of the practical men who are on the spot. This is a matter which the House of Commons cannot conveniently discuss.

The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Joicey) must understand that the clause has been submitted for discussion. I do not wish to interfere in the least with the opinion of practical miners, but I must ask the Committee to observe what is proposed. It is proposed to fix the minimum size of the communication leading from each shaft to every part of every seam that is in work. Do not let it be understood that I am opposing the view of any hon. Gentleman who thinks the communication is not wide enough. I only desire to point out that it is an enormous increase that it is proposed to inflict on the lessee of a collier, because it is proposed that he should be required to make every communication from every seam, six feet by five, instead of four feet by three. That is an enormous increase. It is as well the Committee should appreciate the position. There may be mines and seams in which communication of the size provided is not enough, but do not forget that under clause 43 an Inspector has power to come in, and if he thinks it necessary in a particular mine to have a wider communication in a particular seam of the working, he may insist upon a larger communication. Here you are laying down a minimum size of communication. I do not wish to set up my own opinion as against that of practical miners; but I may say the Inspectors are content with the dimensions proposed in the Bill.

This is a very important question. The whole ventilation of the mines depends upon the doors between the two shafts being kept sound and solid. If an explosion occurs and the doors are blown out, you cut the air off from the whole of the mine, which may be miles in extent. There is no difficulty in making the doors as large as you like; but there is great difficulty in making them so strong as to withstand an explosion. If the air went down one shaft, and up the other, which would be the case if these doors were blown out, the whole of the air would be cut off from the workings. I would rather have no communication between the two shafts, and let air course round the mine, than I would weaken the barrier in any way. It is very important that this should be kept as strong as possible. I have not the slightest doubt the Inspectors have well considered these dimensions, and I must say it would be a very dangerous thing indeed, on the spur of the moment, to alter these dimensions. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. E. Ellis) who moved this Amendment talked of the men passing from shaft to shaft. It is exceedingly unlikely that they will do that. These doors should not form a passage. If an explosion occurred the men would not dream of passing from shaft to shaft, but would depend for their existence upon the air going all round the mine. If the doors were blown out, the air would not course round the mine. It is a very dangerous thing indeed, without due consideration, to alter the dimensions of mine doors without advice from those who have carefully considered this matter.

In view of the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary that under Clause 43 there is power authorizing the Goverement Inspector to enlarge the area, I think it is well that we should adhere to a limited size.

Looking at the clause originally, I came to the conclusion that the area of the communication was too small. We must, however, recollect that this is a minimum. The Amendment which I suggest is five feet by four. I think that would probably be quite sufficient, and would enable the ventilating doors to be kept sufficiently strong, and the current of air to go through the mine.

After the expression of opinion, I have no objection to withdraw my Amendment in favour of that suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Leeds (Sir Lyon Play fair).

Question put, and agreed to.

I beg to move to leave out the word "three" in line 15, and insert "four."

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 15, to leave out the word "three" and insert the word "four."—( Sir Lyon Playfair. )

Question, "That the word 'three' stands part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

I now propose the insertion of the word "constantly" after the word "be" in line 19. The Committee will perceive that this depends upon another Amendment I have upon the Paper lower down—namely, to omit the words "within a reasonable time." The effect of the Amendment would be that the apparatus for the men leaving the mine would be "constantly available." I trust the Home Secretary will be able to accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 19, after the word "be," insert the word "constantly."—( Mr. J. E. Ellis. )

Question proposed, "That the word 'constantly' be there inserted."

This again is a matter which depends upon the opinion of practical men. I am not wedded to the present wording of the clause. I know the existing law does require that the apparatus for outlet should be available for use in a reasonable time. As we all know the upcast shaft is never used except in case of emergency, and therefore "a reasonable time" must depend upon circumstances. I will adopt any form of expression which the practical men in the House think best. At the same time, it does strike me that it is not very rational to require that the winding gear should be always, or constantly available, when we all know that it is only on the lamentable occasion of an accident when it is necessary to be put in use.

I think this Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. J. E. Ellis) is a very reasonable one, and I hope the Home Secretary will see his way to accept it. I myself know a case where an accident occurred, and the men were unable to get out of the mine by means of the ordinary shaft. The second shaft was brought into requisition, but considerable time elapsed before it could be got ready. Great risk was incurred by the men down the mine. Considering the great danger which miners are exposed to, there ought to be constantly in readiness a means of outlet. I remember that an accident occurred in Northumberland, and the apparatus by means of which the men ought to have escaped was not in readiness. Afterwards the men refused to go to work until the owner got the shaft in readiness, and kept it in readiness.

At all well-managed collieries it is the custom to have both shafts in readiness in case of accident. There can be no hardship in compelling every owner to keep his mine in such order. I think the hon. Baronet below me will probably agree with me when I say that in all well-regulated mines in our district that is the case.

No doubt in large well regulated mines apparatus of this description is always kept in readiness. In Staffordshire there are some mines working with small capital, and it is most essential that in these mines the raising machine should always be in readiness. In well-regulated ships they do not expect men to be falling overboard every day, yet the lifeboat and all other life-saving apparatus are always in readiness. The same principle should apply in the case of a coal mine. I trust the Committee, therefore, will accept the Amendment.

This is a most important Amendment. In a matter of this kind everything depends on promptness. A loss of a few moments at a critical time might lead to the sacrificing of scores and hundreds of lives. I therefore must support my hon. Friend if he goes to a Division. I hope, however, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will obviate the necessity of our going to a Division by accepting the Amendment.

I would illustrate the importance of this by directing the attention of the Committee to the Report which was returned respecting the explosion which occurred at the National Colliery in the Rhondda Valley. On page 16 of that Report it is pointed out that at 20 minutes to 7 o'clock, while many of the night shift were waiting to be sent up, the explosion occurred, and caused a large quantity of dust and smoke to be sent up the down-cast shaft, blowing the winding rope off the machine, and doing a great deal of other damage to both shafts. Well, what happened? Why, at about 11 o'clock that night the managers and others succeeded in rescuing five men who were close to the pit's eye when the accident occurred. They were severly burned, but their lives were saved. This would not have been the case if the exploring party had not been able to get at the pit's eye rapidly. In other cases of this kind, if you have the means at hand it is possible that in the same way you may be able to save a great many lives.

I fear we sometimes get hypercritical in these matters, and I think we are in danger of being so in this case, for we find the clause, as it stands, says—

"Proper apparatus for raising and lowering persons at each such shaft or outlet shall be kept on the works belonging to the mine; and such apparatus, if not in actual use at the shafts or outlets, shall be available for use within a reasonable time."

The hon. Member who moves the Amendment says that the apparatus for raising and lowering persons at each shaft shall be "constantly" available, and would leave out the words "within a reasonable time." I am rather in favour of his Amendment, but I do not think there is a great deal to choose between the Amendment and the Bill as it stands.

I trust the Amendment will be accepted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary.

Agreed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 19, leave out "within a reasonable time."—( Mr. J. E. Ellis. )

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18 (Agreements not to preclude compliance with Act) agreed to.

Clause 19 (Exceptions from provisions as to shafts).

I beg to move, in line 17, to leave out—

"Or by establishing communication with a second shaft or outlet in any case where such communication existed, and has become unavailable."

Now, Sir, these words are a new introduction. They are not found in the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Childers), and they have a very curious significance. This Clause 19 is to except certain mines or working districts from the provisions of the previous section, and the words as they stood in the Bill of the late Government were that the provisions should not apply to any proved mine so long as it was exempted by order of the Secretary of State on the ground that—

"The quantity of mineral proved is not sufficient to repay the outlay which would be occasioned by sinking or making a second shaft or outlet."

This very significant addition has been made for what reason I do not know; but it appears to me that there is a lurking danger about it. It has reference to allowing communication with a second shaft to remain closed where such communication existed at one time; but where it may have become unavailable through flooding or some other cause. It might occasion outlay on the part of an owner to re-open a communication which used to exist, but has become unavailable; but there should be sufficient ground shown for not using a communication of this kind, even if it has become unavailable. I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary to explain the exact meaning of these words in the Bill. I would ask him to say in whose interests they have been introduced. It certainly does not seem to me that they have been introduced in the interest of saving the lives of the men. I beg to move my Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 17, leave out from "or" to "unavailable," in line 20.—( Mr. Arthur 0'Connor. )

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

Supposing there is coal in a mine which is being worked out available to be got by means of one shaft, and the other shaft is altogether cut off from it, if it is unnecessary on account of safety to re-establish at considerable cost the communication between the two, to compel the owner to do so might be to oblige him to give up the mine prematurely, involving loss of wages to the workmen and loss of coal. The opening up of an unnecessary communication might involve considerable cost. The principle of the clause has been recognized in all previous Acts.