asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. John Hill, of Bellaghy Castle, who was adjudicated a bankrupt between the years 1850 and 1856, is still in the Commission of the Peace, and presides as Chairman of the Toomebridge Petty Sessions; whether the Bench is composed of five Protestant magistrates; and, whether, having regard to the fact that Toomebridge is a Catholic district, he will ask the Lord Chancellor to consider the propriety of providing for the appointment of at least two Catholic magistrates?

(who replied) said: I understand that the gentleman is in the Commission of the Peace, and attends the Toomebridge Petty Sessions. There is no trace in the records of the Court of Bankruptcy, which have been searched for the past 40 years, that he has been a bankrupt. It is, however, manifest, under any circumstances, that what the pecuniary position of a magistrate may have been at the remote period alluded to is unworthy of consideration at the present time. The religious denomination of the magistrates attending the Toomebridge Petty Sessions appears no be as stated. The Government have no knowledge of the proportion of the different religious denominations of the people in the Petty Sessions' district. There is a good attendance of magistrates at the Petty Sessions. As regards the appointment of any additional magistrates in the district, the proper course is to apply to the Lord Lieutenant of the county.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has boon called to the case of George Butterley, a Sheffield lad of respectable antecedents, who, during an excursion trip to Cleethorpes, took nine oysters from a box on the beach, for which he was sentenced on the 9th instant, at the Grimsby County Police Court to one month's hard labour; and, if, having regard to the probability that the Bench was unaware of the Royal Assent having been given, on 8th August, to the Probation of First Offenders Act, and its applicability to such first cases, he can see his way, under all the circumstances, to advise the Crown to remit the remainder of the sentence, upon such conditions as may be desirable, with a view of rescuing the boy from the present and future consequences of the prison taint?

I have received a Report from the Justices, who were of opinion upon the evidence they heard that the case was a bad one, and inform me that oyster stealing has been very frequent of late, and the proprietors suffer serious loss. The information which my hon. Friend has since been good enough to lay before I me, and which was not before the magistrates, induces me to think that I am justified in advising Her Majesty that the remainder of the sentence should be remitted.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, If the definition of the Technical Instruction Bill is clearly understood to embrace commercial instruction; and if it will be undoubtedly open to Local Authorities to provide educational facilities under the provisions of the Bill for the study of foreign languages, commercial correspondence, advanced book-keeping, the principles of banking, exchange, discount, Customs, and Mercantile Law, and to obtain grants for proficiency in such subjects as for knowledge of handicrafts, and the science of local trades?

I have only to repeat the answer already given to similar Questions, that it is intended to give freedom to localities as to choice of curriculum, subject to the approval of the Science and Art Department, and, of course, as regards grants, subject to any arrangement that may be made between that Department and the Treasury.

wished to know whether the definition of technical instruction would exclude manual instruction in the use of tools?

Does the hon. Gentleman refer to the definition in the Bill?

said, there was no definition in the Bill. There was a book, however, of 200 pages, called The Science and Art Directory, and he wished to know whether in that directory technical instruction in the use of tools would be excluded from the sciences and arts which would receive grants?

said, that was a question for the future. At present grants were not given to manual instruction.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, What was the cost of the great mosaic of St. George in the Central Lobby; if he can state the reasons, other than financial, why the remaining arched spaces have been allowed to remain so long in their present bare and unsightly condition; whether designs for these three spaces have ever been executed, and are still in existence; what their character and estimated cost; and, whether Her Majesty's Government can hold out any hope that before long exertions will be made to complete the mosaics in a manner becoming the beauty of the Lobby and the dignity of Parliament?

The total cost of the mosaic of St. George in the Central Lobby, including £150 paid to Mr. Poynter for the design, was £665. In consequence of the opinion expressed by Messrs. Cope, Horsley, Ward, Armitage, Poynter, and Watts to then First Commissioner, Mr. Ayrton, in 1870, it was deemed inexpedient to proceed further with mosaic pictures. A Committee was, however, appointed to report on the subject of fresco painting, which was duly presented to the House on the 12th February, 1872, and subsequently printed. Mr. Ayrton submitted to Parliament an Estimate of £500 for 1872–3 for completing one panel in fresco. The item was, however, struck out in Committee of Supply. Nothing has since been done in the matter, nor can I hold out any hope that anything will immediately be done to till the vacant panel, for which, no designs exist.

(for Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON) (Tower Hamlets', Poplar) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention had been called to the case of assault by gipsies in Epping Forest on 11th July, for which assault several men were, on 29th July, sentenced by the Bench at the Epping Petty Sessions to various terms of imprisonment; whether he is aware that parts of Epping Forest are infested by gipsies, and that the above is not an isolated case of assault by them; and, what steps he proposes to take to render the Forest safe to visitors? The hon. Gentleman also asked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman has received the Report from the Chief Constable for Essex, with reference to the gipsies who frequent Epping Forest; and, what steps he proposes to take to render the Forest safe to visitors?

Yes, Sir; I have received a Report from the Chief Constable of Essex, who informs me that since the assault by gipsies in Epping Forest on July 11 he had sta- tioned an extra constable at the village of Theydon Bois, and no further disturbance had taken place. The Railway Authorities have also been requested, and have promised, to communicate with the police at Epping when any number of excursionists may be expected there, so that all proper precautions may be taken. The Chief Constable believes that the sentences inflicted by the Epping Bench will have a deterrent effect in the future; and, with regard to the alleged insecurity of the Forest, he is not aware, excepting this particular case, of any serious assault having taken place.

asked the Secretary of State for War, When effect will be given to the decision of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury which was communicated by their Lordships to the War Office on the 19th November, 1886, and by the Colonial Office to the Colonies on the 1st February, 1887, with regard to naval and military officers on the active and retired lists serving under Colonial Governments?

(who replied) said: The Treasury will be empowered to make Rules on the subject if the 6th clause of the Superannuation Acts Amendment Bill now before Parliament becomes law.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If it is the case that if the present Commanding Officer of the 11th Hussars so desired, he could retire this year on a pension of £420 a-year, with the honorary rank of Major General, while the late Commanding Officer who was retired from the regiment on the 18th May, 1886, is placed on half-pay, and may not retire to pension until 18th May, 1891, and then without the rank of Major General, unless he repays to the Government the over regulation price of his commission—namely, £2,775, the service of the first named officer being 19 years, and that of the latter 30 years?

(who replied) said: Honorary rank on retirement has been abolised from the end of the present year. It is, therefore, merely au incident of a time when a Colonel may retire whether he would or would not obtain a step of honorary rank. As regards the amount of pension, it is the case that the officer at present commanding the 11th Hussars could if he wished retire at once on £420 a-year; whereas the Colonel lately commanding the regiment could only do so before he reaches the age of 55 by refunding £2,775, which he received as over regulation. I may point out that it is a necessary result of the abolition of purchase that a post-purchase officer is better off than one who obtained his commissions under the purchase system. At the same time, the latter's pecuniary position is greatly better than it would have been under purchase; for to obtain the command of a regiment and a previous majority he would, in all probability, have had to invest large sums, which, together with the £2,775, he could only have recovered by going to half-pay. If he had done so, he would have had to remain for many years on half-pay before he could have obtained an income equal to that now open to him on reaching the age of 55. In making a comparison between these two officers it is only fair to say that the Colonel of shorter service has served continuously in the 11th. Hussars, while the other Colonel has made six exchanges, which will sufficiently account for his greater length of service.

asked the Postmaster General, If he is aware that there is communication by telephone between Hamburg and Berlin, between Rouen and Paris, and between towns widely distant from each other in the United States; will he state to the House whether his Department has, from time to time, received representations from Manchester in favour of telephonic communication between Manchester and London; and, whether he will take steps that what is done in other countries may also be done in England, to the advantage of the commerce of the country?

I have been informed that telephonic communication has been established between Hamburg and Berlin, Paris and Rouen, and between other towns on the Continent of Europe, and also in America. The Post Office has not received representations from Manchester in favour of telephonic communication between that town and London. The United Telephone Company recently asked the terms upon which the Department would provide telephone wires between London and Manchester; but, up to the present time, I have received no answer to the letter which I have caused to be addressed to them on the subject. Having regard to the cheap and swift means of communication which at present exist by means of the telegraph between the principle towns in the United Kingdom, I am inclined to think that it is extremely doubtful whether there would be much public advantage in establishing telephonic communication generally between those towns.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is practicable to have telephonic communication between London and Manchester; and whether there would be any difficulty in establishing such communication?

I am advised that it is practicable to do so; but there would be considerable expense in procuring new way-leaves, as the poles at present in use could not be made available for telephonic purposes. The machinery would be expensive; but, subject to that, I believe there is no practical impossibility.

asked Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the conduct of Major Traill, in sentencing, on the 7th of July, the lad Killeen to three months' imprisonment, in default of finding sureties to keep the peace, Whether he is aware that the offence with which he was charged was committed so far back as the 10th of June; whether Petty Sessions Courts were held twice in the district between the commission of the alleged offence and the day of the trial, and another Petty Sessions Court was held shortly afterwards; whether Major Traill, in so trying and sentencing the accused outside of Petty Sessions, exceeded his jurisdiction; whe-he is the same Major Traill who, on a previous occasion, acted similarly, in excess of his jurisdiction, and, when the conviction was quashed, gave as an explanation that he was not a lawyer, and that he did not know the law; whether Killeen got any notice of the charge before his arrest on the morning of the trial; whether, when he asked to be allowed to produce witnesses, Major Traill retorted, "Witnesses be d——d," and forthwith proceeded to pass sentence; and, whether, under the circumstances, the Government will cause an inquiry to be made into the conduct of Major Traill, and order Killeen to be released from his sureties?

said, that before the right hon. Gentleman answered the Question, perhaps he would be permitted to ask him whether it was a fact that no life had ever been taken in any district while it had been under Major Traill's charge; whether each district under his charge had been exceptionally free from crime; and, whether Major Traill had been warned three times by the Government, within five months, that his assassination had been arranged for, and that he was never to move about without police protection; and whether it was a fact that a fund for his assassination had been subscribed in a public-house in Dublin in 1882; and how the Government contemplated recognizing Major Traill's services?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask you, Sir, how does the Question of the hon. Member arise out of the Question on the Paper?

It has some relation to the Question on the Paper.

(who replied) said: If the hon. Member (Mr. Johnston) gives Notice of the Question I shall endeavour to answer it. I have no information whatever on the subject. With regard to the Question on the Paper, the facts are not quite accurately given in the Question. The offence was committed on June 18, and the conduct of Joseph Killeen was referred to during the hearing of a case at Petty Sessions on the 5th of July (the first Petty Sessions after the offence) brought by Mr. Tyrrell, who, after Petty Sessions, made an information, on which the magistrate issued his warrant. When Killeen was brought before the magistrate, he thought, having regard to all the circumstances, the case should be treated as one of misbehaviour, and not as one of crime; and called on him to find sureties for good behaviour for three months, which he at once did. He brought his sureties with him, and there was no sentence passed. Major Traill denies that he ever acted in excess of his jurisdiction, or that on a previous occasion, when a conviction was quashed, he gave any such explanation as that he was not a lawyer and that he did not know the law, or that he ever made use of such an expression as "Witnesses be d——d." He intended to adopt a lenient course. There is no necessity for instituting any further inquiry into the matter; but as there appears to have been some misunderstanding as to the procedure, the release of the bail is under consideration.

asked whether, as a matter of fact, Major Traill did not exceed his jurisdiction; and also whether, in reply to a request of the accused to be allowed to provide witnesses, Major Traill used the forcible observation referred to in the last paragraph but one of the Question; and whether, during the existence of the Land League, Major Traill had not gone on a Sunday to a police barracks, and constituted himself a Court there, and passed sentences of imprisonment on several men; whether Baron Fitzgerald had not stated subsequently that Major Traill had sent those men to gaol illegally; and whether Major Traill's counsel apologized for him by explaining that he was only a major in the Army, and could not be expected to know the law; and whether, under these circumstances, Major Traill was a fit and proper person to be allowed to administer the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act?

said, with regard to the first Question of the hon. Gentleman, the Government saw no necessity for instituting any further in- quiry; and he, therefore, presumed the opinion of the Law Advisers of the Crown was that Major Traill did not exceed his jurisdiction. He had already stated that Major Traill denied that he had ever used the expression, "Witnesses be d——d." As to the third Question, perhaps the hon. Member would give Notice of it.

asked, whether it was not a fact that Major Traill had violated the 8th section of the Petty Sessions Act in not giving the accused party an opportunity of having his case heard at Petty Sessions?

said, before the right hon. and gallant Gentleman answered that Question, he wished to ask if the Government would extend protection to those who loyally discharged their duties in carrying out the law in Ireland?

said, Her Majesty's Government always extended the protection of the law to those who loyally discharged their duties in carrying out the law, and intended always so to do. Perhaps the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. M'Cartan) would give Notice of his Question.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the grant of a free and unconditional pardon to an individual from the Crown for an offence of which, on inquiry, it was found he had been wrongly convicted, re-establishes him in his civil rights?

It is not possible fully to answer the Question of the hon. Member owing to the magnitude of the subject to which it refers. Speaking generally, however, the granting of a free and unconditional pardon restores to the individual pardoned his civil rights as far as the future is concerned. As regards the past, it depends upon the time and the circumstances under which the conviction took place, and under which the pardon was granted. If the hon. Member will communicate with me with reference to any special case, I shall be pleased to give him any assistance in my power.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that 130 tenants who, in or near Kingscourt, County of Cavan, and who intend to apply to the Land Court at its next sitting in that county to have fair rents fixed, will be obliged to attend with their witnesses at Baillieborough, a place six miles distant; if so, whether he will communicate with the Land Commissioners, with a view to their holding the next sitting of the Cavan Sub-Commission in Kingscourt, in which place the landlords and agents concerned also reside?

(who replied) said, the Land Commissioners reported that no sittings had yet been fixed for County Cavan. When they were fixed, due regard would be paid to the interests of all concerned.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Why it is forbidden to bathe dogs in the ornamental waters of Regent's Park; if it is allowed in the Serpentine; and, whether he will allow of it during specified hours daily under proper conditions?

It is forbidden to bathe dogs in the waters of all our London Parks except the Serpentine; and I do not think that it would be desirable that this rule should be altered or relaxed as regards Regent's Park, because the water-fowl would certainly be chased, and probably injured, in the narrow waters, even if the permission were restricted to certain hours. The waters of the Serpentine are much wider and the wild-fowl fewer.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Why the following sums, now entered in Vote 14, Class III., under Lord Advocate, have not been trans- ferred to the Vote for the Secretary for Scotland—namely:—Legal Secretary, £500; Crown Agents and Clerks, £1,990 Expenses of Legal Secretary, £200 and, under Vote 16, Class III., the following: Preparation of Bills, £800; Clerks for preparing Returns to Parliament, £130; Fees and Expenses of Crown Agents, £50?

, in reply, said, he did not quite understand what the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to, because the charges he specified had always been provided for in Class III. That did not apply only to the Scottish Department, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman well knew. Class III. of the Civil Service Estimates included legal and cognate charges relating to the Department of the Secretary for Scotland, the establishment of which made no change requiring the transference of these charges to Glass II.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will be good enough to state on what Statute, or on what authority, the exemption from Passenger Duty of railways on public roads, as in the case of Volk's Brighton Electric Railway, is dependent?

, in reply, said, that that was not exactly a case of exemption. Volk's Brighton Electric Railway did not fall within the legal definition of a railway, and was not subject to Passenger Duty. It, however, paid duty in another form; for by a clause in the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1883any vehicle drawn or propelled on a road or tramway by steam or electricity was subject to Carriage Duty.

said, that the words he had quoted confirmed the view that tramways were not liable as railways to Passenger Duty.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether there is any objection to the adoption of the recommendations of the Volunteer Medical Association with reference to rank, &c., of Volunteer Medical Officers, submitted to the War Office?

This Question has also been brought before me by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Holborn (Colonel Duncan). I am able to approve generally the proposals of the Association. Some questions of detail still remain to be considered. But I may say that the grant of the rank of surgeon-major to Volunteer Medical Officers after 12 years' service and the insertion of their names in the Army List as Volunteer Medical Staff will be approved.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the following matter:—

"A drawing of small prizes was instituted in connection with St. Anthony's Franciscan Church, East Dulwich, to provide a day's country excursion for the poor children of the church schools; the prizes were given by friends, and the tickets distributed;

"The children had their excursion; but, owing to the interference of the police, who declared the drawing was illegal, and that the money realized by the tickets (£13) could not be retained, the minister of the church has personally to bear the loss;"

At the beginning of July last the attention of the police was called to the exhibition for sale of tickets for the lottery referred to, and, in accordance with practice, the reverend Gentleman was informed that his action was illegal. All lotteries not authorized by Parliament are illegal under 42 Geo. III., c. 119; and so long as that law is not repealed I cannot properly interfere to protect persons engaged in an act contrary to law, however charitable and deserving of sympathy their motives may be.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is now able to communicate to the House any Report or other result of the Departmental inquiry undertaken six years ago in reference to the large amount of infant mortality caused at many centres of population by summer and autumnal diarrhœa; whether he is aware that several Local Authorities have for six years been incurring expense for meteorological observations made at the request of the Department, and for the special purpose of the Departmental inquiry; and, whether, if he cannot now state the result of the inquiry, he will take means to have it completed shortly, and to lay a Report upon the Table of the House, or to issue it during the Recess?

The inquiry the hon. Member refers to is a general one, relating not only to the cases of infant mortality from summer diarrhœa in some 30 large towns and cities in various parts of England and Wales, but also to the relations which this disease bears to choleraic outbreaks. The investigations are, to an important extent, limited to some six weeks in the year during which the disease is most fatal, and as they have progressed it has become necessary to initiate fresh lines of research. The magnitude of the interests involved may be judged of from the fact that during the third quarter of last year no less than 15,396 deaths were registered as due to diarrhœa in England and Wales, and that 6,171 of these were in 10 of the great towns. During the prevalence of cholera in Europe in the last two years the services of the Inspector supervizing this inquiry had to be, to a large extent, superseded; but the work is now actively progressing, and the Board hope that when the results obtained during the present summer have been received and examined the preparation of a summary Report on the whole inquiry may be proceeded with.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Depart- ment, Whether his attention has been called to the conduct of the Mayor of Taunton in insisting on his right to preside in the police court over a case in which he was an important witness; whether he has seen the following official note made by the magistrates' clerk:—

"Mattock against Burch. Assault. Mr. Crawshaw, for the complainant, objects to the Mayor sitting on this charge, on the ground that he has been summoned as a witness for the complainant, and also on the ground that he has, as a friend of the defendant, been endeavouring to settle the case out of court;"

The facts are, I am informed, as stated in the Question. It appears to me that it would be extremely wrong of the Mayor to act as justice if, from any cause, he had a real bias in favour of either party; and if such a bias existed I presume it might be the ground of an application to set aside his decision. This is, however, a difficult question of law on which I cannot give any opinion.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether there exists any revised edition of the Statutes of Scotland passed before the Act of Union, corresponding to the recently-published revised edition of the Ante-Union Statutes of the Parliament of Ireland; and, if no such edition exists, whether Her Majesty's Government will direct the preparation of an edition of all such and so many of the Statutes of the Parliament of Scotland passed before the Union as are still legally binding and effective, so that Scotland, as well as England and Ireland, may possess a complete edition of all her Statute Law now in force; and, whether, if legislation be needed for the purpose of repealing Acts whose authority has, owing to alleged desuetude, become doubtful, he will introduce next Session such a Bill as may be proper for the purpose aforesaid?

There is no re- vised edition of the Scotch Acts. I cannot, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, enter into any undertaking in the direction pointed out by the hon. Member; but the matter will be looked into before next Session.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused to the public by the delay in opening the post office in Waring Street, Belfast; and, whether he can state definitely when a receiver will be appointed, and on what date the office will be open for business?

, in reply, said, on the 25th of July the Treasury nominated a receiver to the new post office about to be established in Waring Street, Belfast. As soon as she had obtained a suitable house in Waring Street, which she must do without further delay, business will be commenced. If any unreasonable delay occurs, the nomination will be cancelled.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If corps of Volunteers who may purchase great coats this year will be allowed 2s. per annum, according to the Report of the Committee; and, whether the 2s. will commence with the next capitation grant?

(who replied) said: It is intended to issue with the capitation payment next year 2s. for each great coat of approved pattern in possession of the regiments on the 1st of September in the present year; and instructions will be sent out to the various Commanding Officers as to furnishing the necessary certificates.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the arrest of Fred. Henderson at Norwich, Whether he has now received from the Mayor of Norwich the information for which he applied concerning the case; and, whether he will give the particulars of same?

I have obtained a reply from the Mayor to the Questions addressed to me by the hon. Member on the 9th instant. It is a fact that Henderson was struck on the head; but Constable Mills says he struck him accidentally, as his horse was frightened and was plunging. The medical officer who saw Henderson afterwards stated that there was a slight bruise on the scalp. I am informed that it is not a fact that Henderson was dragged off to the police station at a quick trot through the streets. There was great disorder at the time of Henderson's arrest; and it was not until he had obstinately refused to move on, and persistently continued to incite the crowd, that he was arrested. The authorities are not aware, and do not believe, that there are a large number of witnesses, in Norwich prepared to testify to the misconduct of the police and to the serious attack made on Henderson. There are other points dealt with in the Report which I have received, but it is too long to read to the House; but I will be happy to show it to the hon. Member if he wishes.

asked the Home Secretary, whether, in view of the fact that these charges of misconduct against the police were becoming monotonous, he would cause inquiry to be made into the whole matter?

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman did not obtain his information from the Mayor of Norwich, who was one of the chief promoters of, and speakers at, the meeting attended by the Marquess of Salisbury, and who received a letter from the noble Marquess expressing his great satisfaction at the way in which the police performed their duties on the occasion?

wished to know whether, if the Home Secretary was furnished with the names of a number of most respectable citizens of Norwich who saw Henderson dragged through the street by the constable, with his horse at a full trot, to the Guildhall, he would order an inquiry into the matter?

I have already stated, in answer to a Question, that I am not the proper authority to inquire into the conduct of the Borough Police, who are not under my jurisdiction. The person from whom I received my information was not the Mayor, but the Town Clerk, who informs me that the Mayor was present at the meeting in his private capacity, and that he only spoke on the vote of thanks to the chairman.

asked, whether there was any means of getting at the right authority; and whether they could summon the Mayor of Norwich to the Bar of the House?

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is true, as stated in the Press, that a Departmental Committee is pressing a scheme for the reorganization of the clerical establishment of the Admiralty, which appears to show an immediate saving of £10,000 a-year, and an ultimate saving of £25,000 a-year; how many similar re-organization schemes have taken effect at the Admiralty during the last 10 years; and, whether, before the new scheme is adopted, he will lay it upon the Table, in order that the House may have an opportunity of forming an opinion upon it?

(who replied) said: Inquiries are being made inside the Admiralty to ascertain the reductions advisable in the clerical staff. Two reductions, I am informed, have been made during the last 10 years in the Admiralty establishments. Any reductions made are carried out on the responsibility of the Parliamentary Heads of the Department, and the Government cannot undertake to delegate this portion of their duties to the House of Commons.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he sanctioned the issue of the recent Order of the Chief Commissioner of Metro- politan Police, that constables shall not, as heretofore, be employed in watching disorderly houses; and whether the Chief Commissioner is solely responsible for this Order?

No, Sir; I did not sanction the issue of this Order. The Chief Commissioner is solely responsible for its issue.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is intended to reprint, without delay, such volumes of the Report on Technical Instruction as are out of print, or are likely to be out of print at an early date?

I understand that the number of copies remaining of the First and Second Reports of the Royal Commission on Technical Instruction is very small; and if there should prove to be a large demand for them I shall be prepared to give directions for reprinting them for sale in a convenient form. With regard to the four volumes of Appendices to the Reports of the Commissioners, the supply of copies on hand is sufficient to obviate any immediate necessity for reprinting.

Arising out of this Question, will the First Lord of the Treasury say if the Technical Instruction Bill is to be proceeded with this Session; and, if so, when? ["Order, order!"]

I am not prepared to give an answer at this moment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been drawn to a statement to the following effect which appeared in The Times of Ceylon, and in The Lahore Tribune, with reference to the alleged treatment of Arabi Pasha and his fellow-prisoners, Yakub Sami and Fehmy Pasha in Ceylon:—

"A Jubilee procession being formed to pass before the Governor, some troops marched by, after which Arabi, Yakub, and Fehmy stepped out, and in a sad and solemn manner walked past the pavilion;"

I have seen in The Times of Ceylon and other newspapers a report of the Jubilee celebrations, which included a procession past the Governor representing all races and creeds. The troops did not form part of this procession, but at the head of it were about 2,000 Sunday-school children, and among those that followed were representatives of the Mahomedan community in Ceylon, including the Egyptian exiles. They did not attend in any sense as prisoners, or by direction, but merely with the other inhabitants of the Island who voluntarily took part in the celebrations. I may add that it appears in the same paper from which the hon. Member quotes that on the following day three of the Egyptian exiles presented an Address to the Governor for transmission to Her Majesty, containing loyal expressions of congratulation in connection with the Jubilee, and of heartfelt thanks for the just and generous treatment accorded to them in Ceylon, and expressing further their pleasure that they were accorded the privilege of taking a part themselves in the enjoyment of the day.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the case of an agent of the Royal Liver Friendly Society, now deceased, who, during his lifetime, and whilst in receipt of a salary from the Society of £11 per week, levied from four collectors of the Society sums amounting in the aggregate to £2,210; whether a sum amounting to £1 per week per collector was paid to the heirs of the said agent under threats of instant dismissal; whether, on certain members of the Society, including the Local Board in Glasgow, remonstrating with the central Board of Management in Liverpool, on the contravention of the Rules of the Society and injustice to the collectors, the four collectors referred to were summarily dismissed, though some of them had been in the service of the Society for 15 years; and, whether he will order a thorough and impartial investigation into the whole case, with a view to justice being done?

The matters referred to relates to a Society the headquarters of which are in England, and I have no authority to interfere with its proceedings unless crime is alleged. No charge of any kind has been laid before me for investigation. If any civil wrong has been done, a Civil Law Court, and not the Criminal Authorities, should be applied to.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Why a different method is adopted in dealing with Co-operative Associations, as regards their liability to pay Income Tax, to that adopted with respect to other commercial joint stock undertakings and private firms and individuals?

said, before the Chancellor of the Exchequer answered that Question, he would ask him whether it was not the case that the working men who were members of the Societies had no desire to evade the Income Tax, but that they had always been under the belief that 99 out of 100 of their members would not be liable; and, whether it would not cost the Exchequer more in consequence of the number of claims for exemption which would be sent in than would ever be paid by way of tax?

My hon. Friend who has just sat down has answered the Question of the hon. Member, instead of asking another. There is a great deal of force in the point of view put by the hon. Gentleman. As I find that a good deal of misapprehension exists in regard to the levying of the Income Tax upon Co-operative Associations, I am glad to have an opportunity to state the real facts of the case. Every shareholder in a Co-operative Society is liable to Income Tax if his income from all sources is over £150 a-year. Where a Society consists to any great extent of shareholders whose incomes are over £150 a-year, it is found convenient to assess the Association direct, and the existing law has been framed to secure that as far as possible. Where it consists almost entirely of persons whose incomes are under £150, the trouble and expense of assessing the Association, only to return the tax again in most cases to the shareholders with an income of less than £150, far outweighs the advantage derived from the direct assessment of the Association, while the liability of any shareholder, whose income is over £150, is not affected. In the same way, a partner in any business, whatever the profits of the firm may be, is entitled to exemption from Income Tax, if his income from all sources is under £150 a-year, and if the firm to which he belongs has been assessed the duty paid on his share of the profits is returned to him. There is, therefore, no exemption of Co-operative Associations; but the tax is not levied direct upon them, because, in most cases, it would have to be returned to the members of the Co-operative Associations; and it is with the view of saving expense and trouble to all concerned, in cases where it may be presumed that the majority of the members of an Association are not earning profits of £150 a-year, that no tax is levied on the Association as a whole.

Does that apply also to penny banks?

My hon. Friend must give me Notice of that Question. I am not prepared to risk any portion of the Revenue by an impromptu answer.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Whether it is the intention of the Government to grant a sole concession of the right to win and export Trinidad asphalte from the Trinidad Pitch Lake to any person or persons; and, if so, upon what terms as to minimum rent, royalties, and term of concession; whether he is aware that the supply of such asphalte is practically inexhaustible; whether many and advantageous offers have been made to the Government by various persons for the concession; and, what course has been adopted by the Government to invite tenders for the concession?

I stated, in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool (Mr. Baden-Powell) on the 7th of June, that the Government and Legislature of Trinidad were considering an offer by the lessees of part of the Pitch Lake to take a lease of the whole on terms which would insure a minimum royalty of £10,000 a-year. That offer, and the whole question of dealing with the lake, are still under the consideration of the Colonial Legislature, and it is expected that their opinion will be expressed about the 1st of September. It is believed that the supply of asphalte is practically inexhaustible. I am not aware that any other offer has been made for an exclusive concession, nor would any person, except those who held leases of portions of the lake, be able to make such an offer. The Government is not in a position to invite tenders for an exclusive concession, as part of the lake is already leased for a considerable period.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If any commissions have been given to men in the ranks in the regiments of the Guards during the last 10 years?

Yes, Sir; 22 commissions have been so given, including those of Quartermaster and Riding Master.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether an offer has at any time been made of £50 or any other sum as a reward for information concerning the divulging through the Postal Telegraph Department to a Cork newspaper of Captain Plunkett's telegram of 9th March; and, if so, whether the offer has been withdrawn or is still in existence?

, in reply, said, he had no knowledge of any such reward having been offered as the hon. Member referred to.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether he has received a Memorial from the inhabitants of Templederry, County Tipperary, with reference to the great inconvenience they at present labour under owing to the defective postal arrangements for that neighbourhood since the withdrawal of the post office from the village; whether the letters for Templederry, under present arrangements, fail to be delivered at the hour appointed according to the Post Office Regulations; whether it is further contemplated to have the Templederry post delivered at Lattera, four miles away; and, whether he will have the public convenience provided for in accordance with the prayer of the Memorialists by the appointment of a rural messenger to meet the mail car from Nenagh and Templemore at Curabaha, and so have their letters delivered in due time to the inhabitants in, Templederry and district?

I beg to state that no change has been made in the position of the post office at Templederry since the appointment of the present sub-postmaster in 1885, and that I have received the Memorial from the inhabitants of Templederry to which he refers. I had already sanctioned a re-arrangement of the post by which Templederry is served, under which the desired improvement will be effected; and the altered post will commence so soon as a rural postman to perform the service between Latteragh and Templederry has been appointed.

(for Mr. GOURLEY) (Sunder-land) asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is correct that the American Fishing Schooner Perkins has been seized for shipping seven seamen off Prince Edward's Island inside the disputed fishery limits; and, if so, whether, in the absence of a Consular Convention between the two countries, the seizure is legal; whether he is aware that, owing to these seizures, the United States Government have ordered that all British sealing and fishing vessels found within the acknowledged Treaty limits of Alaska are to be seized, and that they have also instructed Admiral Luce, of the United States Navy, to withdraw from Canadian waters; and, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to accede to the desire of the American Government in the appointment of a Commission to inquire into all matters appertaining to the existing Anglo-American fishery disputes, with a view to an amicable adjustment, and the stoppage of further uncivilized seizures?

No Report has yet been received by Her Majesty's Government on the subject of the first paragraph of the Question. Until the arrival of such Report, which manifestly cannot be prepared without investigation on the spot, it would be premature to express any opinion as to the legality of the seizure. Information has reached Her Majesty's Government of the recent seizure of certain British schooners engaged in seal fishing in Behring Sea, and the Government are in communication with the British Minister at Washington on the subject; but they are not aware that any such instructions as those indicated in the Question have been issued by the United States Authorities.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will undertake that any Government Bills not yet introduced shall be introduced and printed forthwith?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question I should like to ask him whether, having regard to the fact that there are now 116 Votes to obtain in Supply; that there are 39 Government Bills on the Order Book; and that there are 41 Bills of private Members on the Order Book, the Government will abstain from bringing in any further Bills; and whether the right hon. Gentleman will take the usual steps at this season of the year to remove the greater part of these 80 Bills from the Order Book, and endeavour to bring this protracted Session to a close?

There is no one in this House who would be more relieved by the close of this very protracted Session than myself. The Question of the right hon. Gentleman is, therefore, one that I should be exceedingly glad to answer in the sense in which the right hon. Gentleman desires. In the 39 Bills mentioned are included a very large number of very small measures, which the experience of the right hon. Gentleman must have told him are absolutely necessary, from time to time, for the proper conduct of Departmental business. There are very few of these 39 measures which ought to take more than a very few minutes. ["Oh!" and "Hear, hear!"] I speak to right hon. Gentlemen who are acquainted with Public Business, and who will quite accept the statement I make. I undertook yesterday to say something about Business on Thursday, and I propose now to postpone any remarks on particular Bills until Thursday; but, with regard to the Question of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. E. Robertson), I can assure him no Bill will be introduced which, by any possibility, can be avoided, or which is not necessary in the interests of the Public Service. I have certainly no wish to ask the House to consider any Bill which, in my judgment, is not absolutely necessary for the protection of the public interests.

My Question was, whether the right hon. Gentleman would undertake that such Bills as might be necessary should be introduced forthwith?

Well, Sir, I hope there will be none; but if there is any Bill it will be introduced forthwith.

asked, whether the Labourers' Allotments Bill, being the first Order, would be proceeded with on Wednesday, provided that the Coal Mines, &c. Regulation Bill passed through Committee that evening?

I should be glad to proceed with it; but we are under an engagement to proceed with the Diplomatic Vote if the Coal Mines, &c. Regulation Bill is through to-night. I have made an engagement to the House, and I wish to keep it.

And when the Diplomatic Vote is carried we are to proceed with the Irish Votes?

Yes; that was the understanding, subject to the Irish Land Law Bill.

said, it would be convenient if an understanding could be arrived at as to when the Irish Votes would definitely be taken.

said, he had been anxious to meet the views of hon. Members, and had promised that the Irish Votes should be taken after the Diplomatic Vote, the Irish Land Law Bill, and the Committee stage of the Coal Mines, &c. Regulation Bill. He would endeavour to fix a date to suit the convenience of the House. That date might be Monday or Tuesday next.

said, what he understood was this—that they would proceed regularly with Supply, postponing the Irish Votes until the rest had been disposed of. He mentioned this for the guidance of the right hon. Gentleman before coming to a decision; and, considering the Business before the House was not Irish Business, it would be more for the convenience of Irish Members if the Irish Votes were postponed until the rest had been disposed of.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take the Technical Schools (Scotland) Bill that night; and, if so, whether he would not go further than to move the Speaker out of the Chair?

We will not go further than that, Sir.

asked, whether it would be possible to take into consideration the Lords' Amendments to the Truck Bill after the Irish Land Law Bill?

inquired, whether the Post Office Savings Banks Bill would be taken that night?

I hope, Sir, the Post Office Savings Banks Bill will be taken to-night. In answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Northampton, I have every hope that an arrange- ment may be made by which the Truck Bill may be taken on Thursday. I am not able to bind myself to that, however.

asked, when will the Chancellor of the Exchequer take the Inland Revenue Bill?

Not before Friday night.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, whether it would not be possible to take the Labourers' Allotments Bill before the Irish Votes?

I will endeavour to make the best arrangement in my power for the Allotments Bill coming on at a very early date.

said, that, so far as the Irish Members were concerned, they were very willing that the Labourers' Allotments Bill should have precedence of the Irish Votes.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, what course the Government intended to take with the view of advancing the progress of the Belfast Government Bill; it was blocked by three hon. Members for Belfast; and if they were at present in the House he would ask them to remove the blocks.

said that, of course, as the Bill was blocked it could not be taken after half-past 12. He had no power to get the block removed, and there was no immediate chance of the pressure of other Business allowing it to be taken before half-past 12; but they would do their best to get the Bill on as soon as they could.

asked, after what hour the Post Office Savings Bank Bill would not be taken that night?

I hope there will be no objection to its being taken at any time.

In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Durham (Mr. W. Crawford), I beg to move the Amendment which stands in his name—namely, to omit the words "so far as is reasonably practicable." the words proposed to be left out are similar to the words introduced into the Act of 1872, which led to so much contention and unpleasantness. If these words are omitted, the clause will run thus—"The following general rules shall be observed in every mine." We fear that if the words "so far as is reasonably practicable" are retained in the clause they may give rise to considerable difficulty. What might appear to be reasonable in one case might be very unreasonable in another.

These words are contained in the Act of 1872, and, as far as I know, no difficulty has ever arisen in regard to them. I think it is hardly too much to ask for some reasonable protection against the employment of these rules with unnecessary severity.

I quite understand the motives of the hon. Member, but some words of the kind are absolutely necessary, seeing that the rules are quite imperative; and it has been laid down by the Court of Queen's Bench that they may be dispensed with in cases in which physical or engineering difficulties prevent them from being carried out. That is the only effect of the qualification. The effect of striking out the words would be to make the rules imperative without any qualification whatever; and persons disobeying them, no matter what the physical difficulties may be which prevent their being carried out, would be liable to a criminal prosecution for the non-observance of them.

Who is to interpret the words "reasonably practicable"—who is to decide whether a particular matter is reasonably practicable or not? If it is to be left to the manager, the door will be opened to abuses which the workmen will have no means of preventing or limiting. The words are very elastic, and therefore we desire to have them expunged from the Bill.

The interpreters of the rules will be the Court who would have to try a man for violating them. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. W. Abraham) will probably remember the case in which a miner was tried for firing the gas in a working place, and in that case the Court took upon itself the interpretation of the rules. With such power in the hands of the Court I think the clause, with these words retained in it, will be perfectly satisfactory.

I suppose everybody is agreed that it is a fundamental principle in good administration to fix the responsibility upon someone. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the decision, of the Court of Queen's Bench; but between the Court of Queen's Bench and the manager stands first of all the Inspector, and secondly the Home Office. There is nothing here to guide a Court of Law in deciding what is or is not reasonably practicable, and the rules are left in a most indefinite manner. If the Inspector could be appealed to as to what is reasonably practicable, or if the Home Office could decide whether a manager has infringed the spirit of the rule, a considerable number of questions and matters of complaint on the part of the workmen would be got rid of. Circumstances are constantly changing in mining operations, so that it is almost impossible for the same case to occur again; and, therefore, a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench in reference to the violation of a rule in one case may not apply to a complaint of a similar violation in another. Therefore it is not unreasonable to ask that there should be some definition of what is reasonably practicable, both in the case of the miners and of the owners and managers.

The Inspector would interpret the act of the manager in precisely the same manner as he would interpret all other cases, and the Inspector would challenge any improper act on the part of the manager.

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman pardon me? It is altogether illusory to say that the Inspector will insist upon having the rules strictly adhered to by the manager.

I said that the Inspector would challenge the acts of the manager.

Then I say again that after what we heard in this House last night upon the question of inspectorship, it is impossible for the Inspector to visit each colliery even once in every 12 months; and if he does not go there how is he going to challenge the conduct of the manager, in regard to the ventilation of the mine for instance? I understand that the Home Secretary does not intend, personally, to relax these rules in any way so as to increase the danger of working the mine. It has already been pointed out that the circumstances of various collieries are very rarely the same; and, therefore, what is reasonable and practicable in one might be very unreasonable and impracticable in another. The right hon. Gentleman says that that is the reason why these words ought to be retained in the clause; but we ask who is to decide the question? The right hon. Gentleman says the Court; but the question will not be brought before the Court until some accident happens. I hope that the Home Secretary will not insist upon the retention of the words.

May I point out a practical difficulty in working this provision in connection with the 21st clause, which provides that, under certain circumstances, the owner and agent of the mine shall not be liable to a fine in the event of the rules being infringed. I quite agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down, that what may be reasonably practicable in one mine may not be reasonably practicable in another. I think the matter is one which ought to be looked at very carefully, and I would suggest that some elasticity should be introduced upon this point, and that it should be left to the Inspector or the Home Secretary to determine how the rules are to be applied. Rules which may be absolutely necessary in the collieries of the North of England or Wales may be in the highest degree prejudicial in the case of the Staffordshire collieries. I would suggest that some such words as these might be introduced into the clause—"except the Home Secretary or the Inspector shall otherwise determine." I do not think that it would be right to leave the determination to the discretion of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction.

The language of Clause 51 is precisely the same as that of the old law, which provides that in certain cases the owner, agent, and manager shall each be guilty of an offence against the Act unless he can prove that he has taken all reasonable means to prevent the contravention or non-compliance with the rules. Unless there is some elasticity in regard to these rules I am afraid they might be made so rigid that it would be impossible to carry them out in their present form.

This is one of the most important, if not the most important, of the Amendments which have been placed upon the Paper. It is quite true that these words are in the existing Act, and they were put into the existing Act in substitution of other words which it was considered would be still more objectionable—namely, the words "under ordinary circumstances;" but they have always been regarded as very loose, and as greatly weakening the value of the rule. So far as I am concerned, I have invariably set my face against them. The miners, generally, are opposed to any such words, because they fear that the rules may be evaded through them. However, I have no desire to continue the discussion, and I hope that steps will be taken at once to test the feeling of the Committee on the matter.

I would ask the Home Secretary whether the views which have been expressed could not be met by a Proviso at the end of the section, stating in what respect a rigid observance of the rules may be expected?

I wish to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) to the fact that, under Clause 52, special rules are to be made for every mine. With regard to the question before the Committee, there can be no man in this House who would desire to insist upon the observance of rules that were not reasonable and practicable; but, as the words would have to be interpreted by a Court of law, the responsibility of complying with the rules would not be taken away from the owner and manager. When, however, we come to the rules themselves, and see how technical they are, and how difficult it must be under any circumstances to carry them out, I think some such words as "reasonably practicable" are absolutely required. I have invariably objected to any redundancy of expression in an Act of Parliament. But in this case these words only mean that general rules are to be observed as far as they can reasonably be observed. For instance, take the first of the rules which relates to the ventilation of the mine, and provides that—

"An adequate amount of ventilation shall he constantly produced in every mine to dilute and render harmless noxious gases to such an extent that the working places of the shafts, levels, stables, and workings of the mine, and the travelling roads to and from those working places, shall be in a fit state for working and passing therein."

There are occasions on which it is impossible to observe the rules, and if the manager is to be responsible for the working of the mine there must be some words to make the observance of the rules reasonable and practicable. If the words are omitted a hard-and-fast rule will be made, by which it will be laid down that a man should do what he really cannot do.

The reason why we want these words to be struck out is that the managers and the miners should be placed on an equal footing in the matter of responsibility. No such words as these have anywhere been applied to the conduct of the miners. The Bill provides that if a workman commits any offence or refuses to carry out the orders of the manager he is to be punished, and there are no words, such as "reasonable or practicable," applied to his case. What we want is that the same provision should be applied to the owner, agent, and manager as that which is applied to the miner.

These rules apply to the employers as well as to the workmen, and therefore affect both sides. It will be impossible for the manager to ask the workmen to do anything unreasonable or impracticable.

May I be allowed to make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary? This matter was discussed at great length last year, and what I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman is this. The general rules are now the subject of discussion; but in the case of special rules under Clause 52 power is vested in the hands of the Inspector, and ultimately of the Secretary of State, to adopt special rules for each particular mine running with the general rules in this clause. I would suggest that the words "as far as is reasonably practicable" should be left out in Clause 50, but that they should be inserted either in Clause 51 or 52—perhaps they would be better in Section 52—giving the Secretary of State distinct power to waive the operation of the general rules in the case of particular mines where special rules are applied, and where it is not necessary or practicable to enforce the general rules. I would rather not lay down at this moment the words which suggest themselves to me, or the exact place where they should be inserted; but I think it would be better that the rules should be absolute, but that a dispensing power given to the Secretary of State in connection with the special rules, enabling him to dispense with any of the general rules in the case of a particular mine. Without some such power I think the operation of the Act would be rendered extremely difficult. It would be, of course, the distinct duty of the Secretary of State to see that when any of the general rules were qualified the qualification was a safe one. If the right hon. Gentleman will adopt the principle of my suggestion I think he will be able to get over the difficulty.

The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman would only meet one of the difficulties. There may be some one rule inapplicable to the circumstances of a particular colliery; but it might also be that a rule had become temporarily impracticable. Something, for instance, might occur to cause a temporary interruption to the ventilation of the mine, and so cause a violation of Rule 1. A case of that kind would not be met by the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.

Yes; I think it would. The Home Secretary would have power to meet a temporary case of accident of that kind. Indeed, he would be able to deal with the rules either temporarily or permanently. The more power we can throw into the hands of the Secretary of State the better.

In the case mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the action of the Secretary of State would be ex post facto and too late.

What I object to is that either the manager or the workman should have the power of saying that either this or that thing is reasonable and practicable, or unreasonable and impracticable. When danger occurs or difficulties arise in any mine we have already provided a solution of the difficulty by an appeal to a Court of Arbitration. Let the arbitrator decide whether a particular thing is reasonably practicable or not. I maintain, therefore, that these words are altogether unnecessary, as you have already provided a Court of Arbitration for the solution of the difficulty.

I support the Amendment because, in the event of a prosecution being instituted, an able advocate may easily convince a magistrate, especially if he desires to be so convinced, that a matter is not reasonably practicable in a particular case, and consequently the rules would be rendered utterly valueless.

I must remind the Committee that these words have already been the law since the Act of 1872.

Much too long.

Will hon. Members consider what may happen if the rules are not observed? The non-observance of any one of the rules subjects a workman or manager to a penalty. Do hon. Members wish that a man should be subjected to penalties where the thing has not been reasonably practicable, and where it has been perfectly impossible to comply with the rules? Suppose, for instance, that a steam gauge in a boiler has been broken off, or some accident of that kind has happened, and the man goes on using the boiler, although immediately the accident occurred he sent to the engineer to report it, and the engineer sent to the manufacturer to supply a new gauge. The man has done his best under the circumstances—he has reported the accident, and steps have been taken to repair the damage; but, nevertheless, he goes on working, and there is an interval. Is he, under such circumstances, to be subjected to a penalty? It is such a case as that which these words are intended to meet—namely, to prevent a man being subjected to a penalty in consequence of something having occurred which he could not help. With regard to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers), I should shrink very much from the responsibility he endeavours to impose upon the Home Secretary. I confess that something of the same kind did pass through my mind originally; but I think it is better to fix responsibility, as far as it can be safely fixed, upon those who are engaged in the working of the mine, and in doubtful cases to dispense with, the strict observance of the rules, because it is quite evident that no general rules can be framed which would precisely fit all cases. The more I have thought upon the matter the more I have been induced to believe that there are too many general rules, and I think it would be better to cut them down, and to leave matters to the Court of Arbitration. Certainly the power of dispensing with general rules which Parliament has thought fit to enact is a power which I think any person, filling the Office of Home Secretary, would he very loth to take upon himself. No Home Secretary would be likely to possess a sufficient amount of technical knowledge to enable him to decide.

The right hon. Gentleman says that this has been the law since 1872. That is no answer to the objection which has been raised, because we are now amending the law of 1872; and the fact that these words exist in the present law should not prevent us from expunging them if they are objectionable. I am not prepared to contend that my knowledge of the law can compare with that of the right hon. Gentleman; but I would submit to him that in such a case as the Home Secretary has suggested no prosecution would be successful, because there would be a good and valid legal defence.

That would not be so.

Of course, I have not the same legal experience as the right hon. Gentleman; but my opinion has frequently turned out to be correct even when pitted against that of very high legal authorities. I think that the words "reasonably practicable" would enable a clever advocate, before a favourable Bench, to evade the Act entirely.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) urges that the general rules should be subjected to special rules. I think the right hon. Gentleman has misconceived the provisions of the Bill in that respect. The special rules are first of all originated by the owner of the colliery himself. The Home Secretary might object; but, if so, he is to be guided by general rules laid down for his direction. I admit that it would be a serious thing if he were to disregard the general rules; but he can challenge the special rules submitted by the owner. The owner is not at all precluded from objecting to the action of the Home Secretary. He has a right to object, and in that case he might go to a Court of Arbitration. The Arbitrator, like the Home Secretary, might consider himself bound by the general rules. These words, and the discussion which has arisen upon them, are a proof, I think, if any were required, of the bad policy of this system of general rules altogether. On the second reading of the Bill I objected to the general rules, because I am convinced they are altogether a mistake, and that they ought not to be enacted. Everything ought to be provided in accordance with the circumstances of the particular undertaking. These general rules throw on the Home Secretary the responsibility of assenting to regulations, although they may be dangerous and difficult in regard to a particular case and a particular mine. The House has, however, decided to adopt the principle of general rules; and, under those circumstances, it seems to me only right and proper that general rules, having been decided upon, they should be distinctly binding upon all parties—that everybody should know exactly how he stands, and what amount of protection he is afforded by the Act of Parliament. The Home Secretary says that these words are in the Act of 1872; but there are many things in the Act of 1872 which since that Act passed have been found to be practically unworkable, and that is one of the reasons why this Bill has been introduced. The manager who claims the protection of these elastic words has a distinct advantage conferred upon him in the event of any infringement of the rules on his part, whereas the working miner has no such advantage. Whoever heard of such words as these being used to protect the workman from the responsibility which attaches to him for a failure to observe the regulations? In the case of defective machinery or engines, the blame falls, not on the workman, but on the manager or the under manager, who would be safe from punishment by these elastic words. But where some rule has been infringed by the miner, altogether apart from the machinery of the mine, the strict letter of the law will be applied to him, and these elastic words will be of no avail. Therefore, in general operation these general rules will be unfair, and I support the proposal to omit them because I do not think they can be equitably made use of in respect to both parties. If I thought the clause would fairly operate I should vote for the retention of these words, because I believe that, as a matter of policy, it would be right and proper for some central authority to decide whether or not it is reasonably practicable to ob- serve a particular rule; but, at the same time, I am of opinion that that authority ought not to be the manager, and that the final Court of Appeal ought not to be the Court of Queen's Bench, but the Inspector.

I agree with what has fallen from the Home Secretary to this extent—that some protection must be afforded in cases where it is a matter of physical impossibility to comply with the rules. I wish, however, to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the later part of Clause 51, which seems to have escaped general observation—

"Unless he proves that he had taken all reasonable means by publishing and to the best of his power enforcing the said rules as regulations for the working of the mine, to prevent such contravention or non-compliance."

The words which appear in the latter part of Clause 51 apply only to a case in which the owner, agent, or manager, is sought to be rendered liable for an offence against the rules committed without their knowledge. Hon. Members will observe that if the rules are broken or not complied with, then any person whatsoever, whether he is the owner, agent, or manager, is guilty of an offence, and is rendered liable to fine and imprisonment. This clause provides, however, that if the offence has been committed by somebody else, and that the manager has known nothing of it, and has never heard of it, he is not to be punished. It is to guard against a vicarious responsibility of that kind that these words are introduced—

"Unless he proves that he had taken all reasonable means by publishing and to the best of his power enforcing the said rules as regulations for the working of the mine, to prevent such contravention or non-compliance."

Not being a lawyer, I am unable to say what the complete effect of omitting these words would be. I would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite whether, supposing these words are left out, and an accident occurs in a mine, the owner and manager would be held to be legally liable, notwithstanding the fact the accident was due to circumstances over which they could have no control.

If the Amendment were to be adopted I am of opinion that not only the owner and the manager, but the workman, in case of an accident, would be liable under the general provision contained in the 1st part of Section 51, which says—

"Every person who contravenes or does not comply with any of the general rules in this Act, shall be guilty of an offence against this Act; and in the event of any contravention of or non-compliance with any of the said general rules in the case of any mine to which this Act applies, by any person whomsoever, the owner, agent, and manager shall each be guilty of an offence against this Act."

I wish to know whether, under the general rules, in the case referred to by the Home Secretary, of the breaking of a steam gauge, the men working the boiler would not be liable as well as the master?

Yes; I should say so, inasmuch as the men would be contravening the general rules by working the boiler without the precautions required to be taken by the general rules. It would be no answer to say—"I could not help it." The answer to that would be—"You should not have continued to work the boiler."

I beg to move, in line 28, after "mine," to insert the words "while any persons are employed therein." The object of the Amendment is to provide that the ventilation of a mine shall only be compulsory while any person is employed therein, and that where, for instance, it is not worked during the night, it shall not be rendered necessary to keep up the same amount of ventilation that would be required while the pit is being worked.

I confess that I do not understand the object of the hon. and learned Member in proposing the Amendment. I presume it is to be read in conjunction with some subsequent Amendment.

No; it is a substantive Amendment.

Then I hope the Government will not accept it. It certainly would be most inapplicable to some of the mines, and might lead to most mischievous consequences. Indeed, there would be the danger of bringing about spontaneous combustion in certain mines if the ventilation were slackened for a time. That, I am afraid, would be especially the case in some of the Staffordshire mines.

In Staffordshire the seams are of two different kinds—one of them being very much broken and giving out a larger quantity of gas than the other, and it is a matter of experience that spon- taneous combustion is only prevented by keeping up a proper amount of ventilation even when the miners are not at work. During the working hours, of course, the men themselves are able to keep the ventilation in order, and there is very little danger; but during the remainder of the night when they were absent there would be no means of keeping up the ventilation unless it were made compulsory upon the owner to maintain it.

The hon. Member (Mr. Hingley) has spoken as an owner of South Staffordshire collieries. Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word on behalf of the South Staffordshire miners, who consider they have good reason for believing that the slackening of the ventilation in the mine has been a frequent cause of accident. A very serious accident occurred not very long ago. The slacking of the ventilation having led to the accumulation of a considerable quantity of choke-damp, three men and an overlooker went down the mine to attend to the ventilation, got into the choke-damp, and were brought up suffocated. Such painful experience on the part of the miners of South Staffordshire is quite sufficient to show that the slackening of the ventilation at any time is a dangerous practice, and ought not to be permitted. It is for the interest of the miners as well as of the colliery owner that the ventilation should be adequately maintained, and I hope that the Committee will refuse to listen to this proposal.

I trust that the hon. Member who has just sat down will allow the Chairman of the South Staffordshire Colliery Trade (Mr. Hingley) and others who have been in Staffordshire all our lives to know as much about these matters as he does. I have taken the trouble to study this subject, and speaking not in the interest of the mineowner, but of the men themselves, I am prepared to say that unless the pits are closed over for the night it would become impossible to work them, and the consequence would be clearly as disastrous to the men as to the owners. I am quite sure that my hon. Friend and myself have the interests of the men at heart quite as much as the hon. Member, and I am prepared to maintain that this clause cannot be rendered operative unless these words are inserted in it.

May I explain that this matter was discussed quite recently at the conference between the masters and workmen in Staffordshire, and it was pointed out that in many of the mines there are broken seams which render it necessary to cut off the air.

As a representative of a large mining distinct in South Staffordshire, I desire, on behalf of the miners, to say a word or two in reference to this clause. I am bound to say that the information I have received from them does not accord with the views which have been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for the Kingswinford Division of Staffordshire (Mr. Staveley Hill). I have been informed by the men—and I think it is a rational view to take—that they desire that the ventilation should be kept up during the night as well as in the daytime, so that when they go down the pit in the morning the air may be found wholesome and free from fire damp and choke-damp. The veriest tyro must know that pure air is more likely to be found in a pit where the ventilation has been kept up during the night than if it had been stopped for several hours. I hope the Committee will not accept the Amendment.

This is one of the Amendments in dealing with which I confess I have had considerable difficulty. I am altogether unwilling to put anything into a clause which is likely to be prejudicial to the interests of any class, either owners or men. On the other hand, in inserting this rule, I have not altered the clause in the Act of 1872 by a letter. The mines in South Staffordshire have gone on and flourished under this provision; and I can only ask myself why they should not go on and flourish under a similar provision in this measure. I know that the Inspectors are decidedly against the principle of stopping the ventilation. One of them tells me that in Leicestershire the mines that are liable to spontaneous combustion are among the best ventilated mines that can be found; and the Reports of the Inspectors and Examiners show that the mines of South Staffordshire must be treated in the same way. I should imagine that in any well-managed mine it would be easy to deal with all circumstances likely to occasion danger; but what is uppermost in my mind is the fact that we are not altering the existing law, and the Bill does not seek to alter it in any respect.

If we were left alone in the future, as we have been in the past, we should not care.

What the Home Secretary has said is perfectly true—namely, that the wording of the clause is precisely the same as that of the Act of 1872. The Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) contained the words—

"An adequate amount of ventilation shall be constantly produced by day and by night throughout the year."

After the discussion which has taken place I shall not press the Amendment.

I have an Amendment to move, in line 28, after the word "gases," to insert the words "and the fumes of explosives." I have had complaints from the miners and workmen in the South Staffordshire mines that they suffer from the fumes arising from the powder exploded in the mines. As the rule is drafted, it simply provides that—

"An adequate amount of ventilation shall be constantly produced in every mine to dilute and render harmless noxious gases."

I think the words "noxious gases" cover also the words "fumes from explosives." The fumes from explosives are certainly noxious gases, and it is, therefore, unnecessary to insert the Amendment.

It is generally considered that noxious gases are gases which are generated from the coal, and not from explosives. The men who work in the mine complain very bitterly indeed of the foul air produced by these explosives. That is the view which I wish the Committee to take of the matter. Only yesterday I received a letter upon the subject, stating that at the present time the health of the miners suffers very severely from this cause—not from the noxious gases generated from the coal, but from the fumes of the explosives fired off in the mine.

I have now to move at the end of the rule, in line 32, to add these words—

"And all waste places in the mine shall be either built in, drained, or so ventilated as to make it impossible for dangerous quantities of gas to accumulate."

I hope that my hon. Friend, whatever else he does with the Amendment, will take out of it the words "built in." Nothing could be more dangerous in a mine than to build in what may turn out to be a tank of explosive gas. which may be let out by some accident. I would point out to the hon. Member that this clause requires an adequate amount of ventilation to be provided, and it must be of such a character as to draw away the noxious gases which may accumulate in a mine, and render it liable to explosion.

In the Midland Counties the goaves are solid goaves; and where you have a solid goaf there is no danger.

If the hon. Member for North-East Lanark (Mr. Donald Crawford) means walling up, I believe that no practical man would agree with him; but if he means what is termed stowing, I shall be prepared to vote for his Amendment. I would, however, suggest to him that he should allow the Amendment to be amended so as to substitute the word "stow" for "built in."

I do not see how that can be done.

This is a subject which I think would be better met by a special rule. It will depend very much upon the manner in which the mine is worked as to whether it is possible to do this or not. I take it that what the hon. Gentleman the Member for North-East Lanark means by the words "built in" is packing or stowing. Where it is quite possible in a large mine to pack the goaf and to keep the waste places packed up or stowed, in some of the mines in Staffordshire, which are worked on the pillar and stall principle, it would be impossible to pack. The waste places in that case must be kept open without being packed or filled in; and it is only when you are working the pillars themselves that it becomes possible to pack. The matter, however, is surrounded with difficulty, and to lay down any general rule is impracticable. I have, therefore, after turning over the subject in my mind, come to the conclusion that the best way of dealing with it is to leave it to the special rules. The decisions of the Courts have, I think, rendered any danger which might arise from the neglect of waste places less serious than it was before those decisions were given. In such cases it has been decided that not only the ventilation of the working places, but that the levels, and the travelling roads, and the waste places must be adequately ventilated so as to free them from noxious gases. As the law now stands I think there is as much in the Statutes on the subject as any general rule can meet. I would therefore suggest that the safer mode of dealing with this very difficult subject would be to leave it until we reach the special rules.

I quite appreciate the difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman; but, after all, this is merely a question of expense. If a rule were once made it would have to be applied, and the men would have the consciousness that they are not working in constant peril of an inroad of gas. At the same time I am quite aware that in Scotland especially it has been extremely difficult to drain off the accumulations of gas.

I trust that my hon. Friend will allow his Amendment to be amended by leaving out the words "either built in, drained or." It will then read—"And all waste places in the mine shall be so ventilated as to make it impossible for dangerous quantities of gas to accumulate." I quite agree that it is necessary to ventilate waste places, and so to ventilate them that an accumulation of gas shall not take place.

I am well aware of the difficulties of the question, and I think they have been fairly stated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I also attach the greatest weight to the opinion of my hon. Friends below the Gangway, who have practical experience, which I cannot claim. I am, therefore, quite prepared to accept the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. W. Abraham) and the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Pickard), if that will render the Amendment acceptable to them.

Then I beg to move that the Amendment be amended in the way I have suggested. The only thing we want is to prevent, as far as possible, an accumulation of gas.

I believe that this will be found to be quite impracticable, and I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed. I feel that it would inflict great injury upon the owners.

The Amendment is proposed in the interest and safety of the miners, and if it is found that in carrying it out it increases the cost of getting the coal I am satisfied that the general public will be willing to pay an increased price for their coal if they are thereby assured that the lives of the miners are to some extent rendered more safe by the carrying out of the provisions of this Bill. I think the question of increased cost ought not to stand between this House and effective legislation for procuring the increased safety of life and limb to the miners. I shall therefore support the Amendment as it has been amended.

I quite agree with the hon. Member that we ought not to study the question of cost in comparison with that of safety, but I would invite the attention of practical miners to this question. Can you effectually ventilate the waste places in which the roof has come down, or where you are following the pillar and stall system of working? When once the roof has come down you cannot possibly reach the gas by ventilation; but it you do not attempt to introduce air into them you will soon have an accumulation of fire-damp which it is difficult to expel, because the introduction of fresh air renders it dangerous. I would therefore ask the Committee to pause before making a general rule which would not only be impracticable, but positively dangerous in some cases.

I would respectfully submit that we are dealing with a most important question. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that probably the best way of dealing with the subject will be by framing a special rule; but I think is is essentially necessary to say in the general rules that this must be done. Unless something of the kind is inserted in the general rules an employer may permit these large reservoirs of gas to be formed. So far as the contention goes that it is impossible to do this, I would ask what becomes of the qualification "so far as is reasonably practicable?" Will not the matter be met by that qualification that "as far as is reasonably practicable" it should be done? I quite admit that there may be a certain amount of danger, but no man would enter these holes without there was a sufficient supply of air to clean them out, and when the waste places have been stopped up, if there is the least fall of roof, the gas inside will be brought out into the fresh, air. That is a thing which we ought not to permit at all, and there should be a specific provision that no reservoir of gas should be allowed to exist in any mine, but that all the waste places should be properly ventilated. I myself believe that it is necessary that some such provision as that which is proposed in this Amendment should be inserted in the general rules, but that the way of carrying it out should be left to the special rules to be made for each district. The special rules in that case would be adapted to the circumstances of the district.

I am of opinion that it would be perfectly impracticable to carry out the Amendment if it is passed. Anyone who knows what a large mine is knows that it is impossible to ensure a perfect ventilation of the goaf. Let me call the attention of the Committee to what they are going to enact—namely, that—

"An adequate amount of ventilation shall be constantly produced in every mine, to dilute and render harmless noxious gases to such an extent that the working places of the shafts, levels, stables, and workings of the mine, and the travelling roads to and from those working places, shall be in a fit state for working and passing therein."

One of my earliest experiences down a mine was in being taken down for a considerable depth underground. Having reached the bottom, I walked for several hundred yards up an incline to one of the working places, and the miner raised his lamp above his head, when I saw a blue corona formed around it, which I understood to indicate that there was a dangerous accumulation of gas. He told me that that gas came from the goaf, and I must admit that in that particular working place I failed to see how it would be possible to ventilate it adequately. There is, however, something more important than ventilation, and that is that if these places cannot be ventilated, and the presence of this dangerous and inflammable gas cannot be prevented, then the men ought not to be exposed to danger, and the mine itself ought not to be worked. We have inserted elastic words at the beginning of the clause to provide that the general rules shall be observed "so far as is reasonably practicable." Therefore, I do not see why those who represent the coalmining interest should hesitate to submit to them.

May I point out that in the Midland Counties the goaves are solid, and there cannot be danger.

No suggestion has been made that a solid goaf should be ventilated, but only the waste places. It is a mistake to suppose that the ordinary goaves cannot be ventilated. As a matter of fact, when they are packed, the ventilation is carried along the goaf by poking holes in the head of the pack-wall in the gateway, so that any gas which may percolate through the goaf towards the working face is carried away. That is the system which is followed in Yorkshire, and I think it is possible that what is done there can be done anywhere else.

This Rule provides—

"Where a fire is used for ventilation, the return air, unless it is free from inflammable gas, shall be carried off clear of the fire by means of a dumb drift or airway."

"Where a fire is used for ventilation, the return air shall be carried off clear of the fire by means of a dumb drift or airway."

I quite agree with a considerable part of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, and I believe that in most of the mines in Lancashire a dumb drift is used in connection with the furnace. But there are many mines where the quantity and proportion of gas are not considerable, and there is no possibility of an accident arising. Of course, all these things are carefully watched by the engineers and the Inspectors, and the Rule, as it exists in the Bill, practically does the same thing as the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to effect by his Amendment. How can anyone pretend to say that the air in a colliery is perfectly free from inflammable gas? I think it very likely that if the air in this chamber had teen analyzed last year it would have been found that there was a certain portion of inflammable sewer gas in it, and yet the air is passed through a furnace near the roof. All we want to provide against is real danger, and this danger seems to me to be provided for by the Rule as it is proposed. Where the gas is so small and where it is rendered harmless by the ventilation, a furnace may be used freely; but where it exists in any quantity and is likely to do harm, I think the dumb drift ought to be obligatory.

If I understand the argument of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) rightly he objects to the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend; but I confess that, as far as the argument itself went, it was in favour of the Amendment, because the hon. Member said, if I apprehend him rightly, that it is exceedingly difficult to tell when the return air is free from inflammable gas. It was the difficulty that existed in determining when the return air is free from inflammable gas which has induced my hon. and learned Friend to move the Amend- ment to omit the words "unless the mine is free from inflammable gas." He proposes to provide, in order to avoid all difficulty and risk, that the return air shall not pass over a furnace, but be carried away by a dumb drift.

If the Amendment were intended to be prospective in its operation I would have small objection to it; but, considering the large number of collieries which are worked at the present time in connection with naked lights, it would be monstrously oppressive, I think, to compel the owners to incur a large expenditure in altering their arrangements simply for the purpose of providing dumb drifts in their collieries. I think the Amendment should be made prospective in its character, and in that case I would support it, because I believe that furnaces are objectionable, and that in laying down collieries in future it would be desirable to use dumb drifts. But to impose an obligation upon the owners of existing collieries, in order to avoid a danger which does not exist in a mine where naked lights are used, I think would be most unwise.

I intend to support this Amendment, which carries out one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The Commissioners were strongly of opinion that dumb drifts should be constructed; and that principle has also the support of the Inspectors of Mines.

I cannot support the Amendment, because I believe there are many cases in which it would operate unfairly. I believe there are at least 1,000 mines in which there is no danger at all, and it would be ridiculous to enforce this rule in them.

I think the Home Secretary will find, on referring to the Bill of last Session, that what is provided for by this Amendment was then proposed. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment, as it will greatly facilitate the progress of the Bill.

I think this Amendment ought to be made prospective only, otherwise it might impose a heavy burden upon a depressed industry, which it is desirable to avoid doing unless it is absolutely necessary. I am not aware that any accident has ever arisen in consequence of the return air not being perfectly pure. I think, on the Report, the clause might be so framed as to make the Amendment prospective only in its operation.

I wish to point out that if the return air is free from inflammable gas the plan suggested is a very bad way of dealing with the matter. If it is necessary to make this alteration I think it ought to be done in a more economical manner.

I perfectly recognize the hardship which my hon. Friend has pointed out—namely, that of making it, in all cases, incumbent on the owner to put a dumb drift; but, I think, prospectively there ought always to be a dumb drift. I think there might be some limiting words such as proposed by the Home Secretary, which would more happily carry out the object in view, such as that—"unless the Inspector certified that a dumb drift is not necessary."

I suggested prospectively that the return air, in all cases, should be carried away by a dumb drift.

I want also a further addition to the clause—namely, that in collieries where there is, in the opinion of the Inspector, danger from air passing over the furnace, there a dumb drift shall also be required. I do not wish to put any burdens upon coalowners for frivolous reasons; but where there is any real appreciable danger to human life, I think, whatever the cause may be, this precaution should be taken. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept the limiting words which I suggest.

That would be done under Clause 43.

The right hon. Gentleman thinks that this is effectively provided for under Clause 43; but I have grave doubts about that, owing to the recent decision of the Court of Appeal that no arbitrator has power to compel any particular thing to be done, and that all he has to do is to see that there shall be absolute safety. I shall be prepared to accept words to limit my Amendment to prospective mines, and will therefore ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, with a view of making it prospective.

The Amendment which I to rise to move is to add, after the word "appointed," in line 14, the words "in writing." I move this Amendment in order to secure the principle to which I have referred earlier in the evening—namely, that you should have clearly traceable responsibility at every stage of the administration of this industry. If the owner appoints a person for an important duty such as is imposed by this clause, it is only reasonable that he should appoint such persons by writing under his hand. This would fix the responsibility upon the person appointed, and also fix the responsibility of the owner of the mine.

I wish to point out that the practical working of this Amendment would be very difficult. In many collieries there are 15, 20, or 25 men, who are appointed daily to inspect the far off workings of the mine. These men are generally taken from the ranks. The hon. Member proposes that before these men go their rounds they shall all be appointed in writing. I need hardly point out that this would entail much more work than is necessary. The men are well known, and perfectly conversant with the mines, and their responsibility easily traced without putting the owner to the trouble of making the appointment in writing.

The next Amendment which stands in my name is connected with that which follows it, and the object of it is to make it imperative that a long time shall not elapse between the men going into the pit and the examination of the working place by the person deputed and the firemen. The interval I propose is really a very wide one; it ought to be enough for the purpose, and it is more than is usual in many instances; but we have had cases in which intervals of four, five, and even sis hours have elapsed, and that is utterly out of all reason, having regard to the danger which may exist. I rely upon the reasonableness of this Amendment, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will accept it.

I can assure the bon. Member for Morpeth that it is my earnest desire to insist on inspection immediately before the change is made. When I came to consider the matter I was told that the conditions vary so much in different mines that no time should be fixed. The hon. Gentleman suggests that we should put in the words "not exceeding two hours," so that he leaves it possible to extend to two hours the period which in some mines is only half-an-hour. I think it would be better to leave something to the discretion of the manager in this matter. I have no objection to put in such words as "within such time immediately before the commencement of the shift," or "shortest possible time." The intention was to fix the time according to the size of the mine.

I wish to point out to the Committee that this very subject received careful and long consideration at the hands of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) last year, and after that most careful consideration it was decided that the words which the right hon. Gentleman has now adopted would meet everything that was desired under the circumstances.

I do not wish to prolong the discussion of this question, especially after the small concession which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman. But I again endeavour to impress on the mind of the Home Secretary the importance of this question, and to point out that unless the limit is made which my hon. Friend has suggested, it cannot be said that the examination is made immediately.

I rise to propose that we should insert in line 21 that the examination for the purpose of ascertaining whether gas is present in the mine shall, if the Inspector requires it, be made by means of indicators to be approved by him. Perhaps the Committee will wish to hear from me some explanation of the term "indicator" in this connection. I will endeavour to explain what is the object of my Amendment. In the course of the inquiry by the Royal Commission which was appointed to consider whether the resources of science would protect colliers against accident in mines—on which Commission I had the honour and privilege of being secretary—it was made part of the inquiry to deal with the question of coal dust, which is one of great importance with reference to the dangers in coal mines. They discovered, and made quite sure, that the presence of a very small volume of inflammable gas in a mine might be a source of serious danger where the mine was dry and dusty. A volume probably as low as 1½ or 2 per cent, it was conclusively proved, might be the cause of a serious explosion. The Commissioners examined a multitude of inventions presented to them for the purpose of indicating the presence of gas, and they ascertained that one apparatus determined with the greatest accuracy and simplicity of action the presence of a very small proportion of gas—namely, ¼ per cent. I wish it to be brought before the Committee that there is a method of indicating the presence of gas in these small proportions, and having regard to the danger consequent upon their presence in the roadways in dry and dusty mines, I think it right that it should be left to the Inspector to decide in particular collieries that some indicator should be used. Having pointed out the simple means by which the presence of very small but dangerous quantities of gas may be indicated, I will leave the Amendment which I beg to move in the hands of the Government.

No doubt, the Commission to which the hon. Gentleman has referred has thrown a great deal of valuable light on the subject of the presence of gas in mines. I am bound to say, however, that as far as my information goes the Inspectors do not know of any indicator that is trustworthy in the hands of all who may use it. Therefore I am unable to say that I can look with favour on the language of this Amendment. It is the business of the managers of the mines to do what is necessary in this matter; and although I agree that they should be made responsible for not taking proper precautions, I do not think it desirable that the particular method of doing so should he laid down here.

I feel the force of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and am disposed to be satisfied with having brought this subject forward. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the instrument I have referred to has not at present been found to answer; but I think it only fair to the Commissioners to say that to my knowledge a large number of experiments were made, in mines and elsewhere, with this indicator, which on those occasions certainly performed accurately.