I wish to move an Amendment which stands on the Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell)—namely, to leave out General Rule 33, for the purpose of inserting—

"Where persons are employed underground, ambulances or stretchers, with splints and bandages, shall be kept at the mine ready for immediate use in case of accident."

"Where more than fifty persons are usually employed underground, stretchers and bandages shall be kept at the mine for use in case of accident."

In introducing the Rule I had the same purpose in view as the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt), and it certainly appears to be desirable that that object should be carried out. My desire has been entirely that of the hon. Member; but I understand that he prefers his own proposal. I would suggest, however, that he should strike out of the Amendment the reference to "splints," because no unskilled person could apply splints properly, and I am afraid that a sufficient amount of knowledge and skill could not be found among ordinary workmen in a mine. The Amendment refers to the use of ambulances. I had ambulances in my mind; but I did not use the word, because it conveys the idea of a carriage or a vehicle of some kind, and in a great number of the mines it would be impracticable to employ vehicles. I thought it would be better to use the more technical words "stretchers upon which any wounded man maybe carried." I desire to assist the hon. Member as far as possible; but I can assure him that in many of the mines it would be altogether impracticable to use ambulances. Many of the roadways are too narrow for anything of the kind. I would, therefore, suggest to the hon. Member the propriety of retaining the word "stretchers" and striking out "ambulances."

I fully recognize the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has met the Amendment, and I admit the force of his objection in regard to the use of the word "splints." At the same time, I adhere to the opinion I have expressed that in some cases an ambulance is necessary. I quite see that splints may be useless unless there is a medical man to apply them. All I desire, however, is that they should be placed in the mine so that they may be available whenever it is practicable. With regard to ambulances, I speak from personal experience. I have known cases of men who have been injured having to be carried a considerable distance without any provision existing in the colliery for their proper conveyance, and the result has been that they have suffered severely from being shaken about.

Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman agrees to the word "splints?"

Yes, as far as I am personally concerned.

While I am in favour of every practical remedy and appliance being provided, I am of opinion that care ought to be taken not to require the mineowners to do things that are impossible.

May I point out that there is an alternative? The Amendment says 'ambulances or stretchers."

The Amendment of the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. A. J. Williams) is not in Order. These are not special rules for a particular mine, but general rules.

Then, at what stage of the Committee can I bring my Amendment forward?

The hon. Member may bring it up as a new clause.

The next Amendment is in my name; but I must point out that there is a slight error in it which, perhaps, the Committee will allow me to correct. I propose to leave out the second word "at" in line 27, after the word "office," and insert the words "and in." The rule will then read in this way—

"The books mentioned in these Rules shall he provided by the owner, agent, or manager, and the books, or a correct copy thereof, shall be kept at the office and in the mine, and any Inspector under this Act, and any person employed in the mine may at all reasonable times inspect and take copies of, and extracts from any such books; but nothing in these rules shall be construed to impose the obligation of keeping any such book or copy thereof for more than 12 months after the book has ceased to be used for enteries therein under the Act."

I must point out that this is a general rule, and that there are many mines in the country in which it would be impossible to have any office under ground in which the books could be kept. I admit that there are various things which cannot be dealt with by a general rule, but it may be dealt with by special rules. There are, however, many mines in which books could not be kept.

Why not?

For instance, they could not be kept in proper preservation in a place where there is a large quantity of dripping water. The question is one which ought to be dealt with by a special rather than a general rule, because this rule applies to all mines, and it cannot be suggested that in every mine throughout the country it is either practicable or desirable to keep books.

As a matter of construction, I would submit to the right hon. Gentleman that words might be inserted imposing an obligation upon the mine-owners to establish an office in every mine. I would suggest that it would be quite sufficient to say that wherever there is an office it should be necessary to keep the books there.

I have to move in the same Rule, in line 29, after "mine," to insert "or anyone having the written authority of any Inspector or person so employed." I know that the miners attach great importance to this Amendment, and I trust that the Government will accept it.

Of course, the workmen would have the right to inspect the hooks under this clause; but it might not be altogether desirable in all cases to allow the books to be inspected by strangers.

In the event of an accident occurring a workman may be injured, and may not be able to inspect the books for himself. These books are not of any secret nature, and I think it is desirable that the relatives of the workman, for instance, should have a right of examining them.

Surely a fellow workman could act for a wounded man. The Amendment, I am afraid, would admit any stranger, which I think would be objectionable.

An injured miner may have friends outside the mine who would be able to give him considerable help in the matter, and as these books are in no respect secret, it may be of importance that persons acting for the workman should have power to inspect, for instance, the registers kept in the mine. In many cases it may be desirable that there should be an inspection of the books, in order to satisfy the families of injured men in regard to the real facts of the case.

I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. Mason) that it is desirable to give the workmen the power of appointing some independent person to go down the mine and inspect the books. There is a great deal more in the Amendment than appears at first sight. I know there is a strong feeling among the miners, especially in large mines upon this point. Many of them are anxious to have a periodical inspection, but they feel that unless this were made compulsory it might be considered ungracious on their part to send in an unfavourable Report. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment, and will consent to make the inspection compulsory.

I hope the Government will give way, because I cannot see the slightest weight in the objection they have taken to the Amendment. At the same time, I do not see that this right of inspection will be of any practical benefit to the miners.

The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for the Normanton Division of Yorkshire(Mr. Pickard), does not seem to me to be admissible. It would make the Rule applicable to particular mines, whereas it is proposed to be inserted as a general rule.

The next Amendment is in my name. It is a very small Amendment—namely, to leave out "may" in Rule 37, in order to insert "shall." The Rule says—

"The persona employed in a mine may from time to time appoint two of their number to inspect the mine at their own cost, and the persons so appointed shall be allowed, once at least in every month, accompanied, if the owner, agent, or manager of the mine thinks fit, by himself or one or more officers of the mine, to go to every part of the mine, and to inspect the shafts, levels, places, working places, return airways, ventilating apparatus, old workings, and machinery. Every facility shall be afforded by the owner, agent, and manager, and all persons in the mine for the purpose of the inspection; and the persons appointed shall make a true report of the result of the inspection, and their report shall be recorded in a book to be kept at the mine for the purpose, and shall be signed by the persons who made the inspection; and if the report state the existence, or apprehended existence, of any danger, the owner, agent, or manager shall forthwith cause a true copy of the report to be sent to the Inspector of the district."

I entirely share the views of the hon. Member that in every colliery this work of inspection should be periodically undertaken. I believe that nothing would more readily tend to promote a good understanding between the employers and the men. The hon. Member, however, proposes to insert "shall" instead of "may," but this is one of the instances in which the words at the beginning of the clause, "so far as is reasonably practicable" come in. What are to be the consequences to the workmen themselves if they do not make this inspection periodical? Are proceedings to be taken against them if they have failed to do it? Is it the object of the hon. Member, in inserting this word "shall," to authorize the taking into custody for the purpose of having them fined and proceeded against by summary jurisdiction, of workmen who have failed to comply with this rule? That is one objection against making the rule imperative—namely, the difficulty of enforcing the demand. I do not think that we could trust to any summary jurisdiction to compel an inspection on the part of the workmen. If workmen are to be fined for not making the inspection, they would certainly look upon the rule with disapprobation and disgust. I certainly think it will be better to authorize and empower the workmen to make an inspection without compelling them to do so. Whenever they think there is danger they will have the right of demanding an inspection, and of making an investigation into the matter themselves.

If the right hon. Gentleman would allow the inspection to be made by other working-men I would accept that alteration, but I attach, very great importance to this power of making the inspection imperative.

I entirely sympathize with the object my hon. Friend has in view in moving the Amendment; and I also agree with him in attaching the utmost importance to an inspection by the workmen. I advocated the principle at the time it was imported into the existing Act, and I think it is one of the most valuable provisions of that Act. Whenever I have had an opportunity I have endeavoured to impress upon the workmen the importance and duty of carrying it out; but when my hon. Friend goes to the extent of making the inspection compulsory, I would point out to him that there are practical difficulties in the way. Wherever the workmen are organized, and have trades unions—whatever difference of opinion there may be as to the value of trades unions—this work of inspection is usually carried out. But where you have no such organization how are you to do it? Would you institute proceedings against individual workmen because, unless you impose some penalty, and endeavour to make the rule effective, there would be very little advantage in inserting it in the Act. For this reason I think the Amendment is impracticable. But my hon. Friend has done good service in calling the attention of the workmen to the importance of availing themselves of this provision. If I disagree with my hon. Friend in this matter, I fully appreciate the valuable services he rendered to the miners in connection with the Royal Commission, and I know of no one who has done more to secure the protection of life and property in mines. At the same time, I do not think that it would be desirable to bring in workmen and others who are not employed in the mine, and allow them to inspect the works. I think that that would be very undesirable.

After what my hon. Friend has said, I shall not insist upon the Amendment, but will withdraw it at once. My hon. Friend spoke about the action of trades unions. Unfortunately the time has not yet arrived when, the workmen in all the mines have been thoroughly organized, but I believe that the system of trades unions is being very rapidly developed.

I propose in the same rule to move an Amendment which stands on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Merthyr-Tydvil, (Mr. C. James) —namely, to leave out the words "of their number," in order to insert "practical miners." The rule provides that "the miners employed in the mine may from time to time appoint two of their number to inspect the mine." Now this is an Amendment which, in my opinion, is of very considerable consequence to those parts of the country where the organization which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Morpeth is not as perfect as it is in Northumberland, Durham, and parts of Wales. In many of the mines very great difficulties have been experienced in getting men to consent to take upon themselves what is regarded as the invidious duty of inspecting the arrangements made by their employers. They feel that if by doing so they offend the employers, oven if at the moment they may not be visited with pains and penalties, yet they may possibly in the future suffer from having put themselves forward in the matter of inspecting the mine. It is very much like the case of the Greek warrior who wanted to be protected from the wrath of Agamemnon for all time. It is for a similar reason that the men desire to be able to appoint men who are beyond the reach of the mine-owner, whose anger the men themselves are afraid of incurring. Although it may not be a matter of much consequence where the miners' organization is very powerful, and they are able to assert their rights and impose their will upon the employer, yet it is of very great consequence in Scotland and parts of England where the organization of the miners is very weak, and where an inspection of this kind is only undertaken with fear and trembling.

If the Amendment is accepted, it may result in the appointment of men to inspect the mine who are not themselves working in the particular mine which it is proposed to inspect. If the appointment of such men be considered undesirable, then I think it would be better to leave these words in, and add after the words "two of their number" the words "being practical miners."

The object I desire to effect is, that the men appointed shall not necessarily be employed in the mine.

The difficulty may be met by saying "two of their number, or two practical miners," so that it would cover the case of men who are not strong enough to act by themselves. I know that that state of matters does exist in some parts of the country, and that the men in reality do not dare to appoint two of their number to make the necessary inspection. Under these circumstances, I would ask the hon. Gentle- man to substitute "or two practical miners."

I trust the hon. Member will accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Derbyshire (Mr. T. D. Bolton). This very point of having two men appointed who are not employed in the mine is a matter which the miners of Scotland specially insist upon. They do not charge anything against the mine-owners, nor are they anxious to fight the matter on personal grounds. They make no insinuation that they are subject to intimidation; but there are men who have been accustomed all their lives to treat their managers and owners as a sort of superior beings, and they cannot bring themselves to act contrary to their wishes, even when they know that justice and right are on their side. I may say that a proposal to this effect was adopted unanimously in the miners conference, and that it is invariably carried out where the miners organization is strong enough to insist upon inspection.

I am ready to accept the suggested Amendment, but I think it would be practically nugatory, because, if we say "two practical miners," it would still be open to the workmen to choose any two of their own number.

My desire is that the men themselves should appoint two of their own number, and this is an instruction to them to do so, and in doing so, they would be able to appoint two practical miners who were connected with, other mines. I think it is desirable that they should have the power of appointing two men other than those who are working in the mine.

There is no objection on the part of the mineowners to an inspection of the mine by the workmen, and it is desirable that they should make such, an inspection, but the reason the workmen very rarely avail themselves of the rule, is simply because they are not paid for conducting an inspection. If they were entitled to be paid for their work, as examiners are, that fact might, I think, prevent any difficulty.

The object of giving the workmen this power is to enable them to ascertain accurately the state of the mine. That is the object of this general rule, and if you are to appoint two practical miners to discharge the duty, I do not think that you ought to be tied down to the very mine in which the men are employed. I have no desire to use any harsh expression upon the subject, but I could mention a few cases where men employed in the mine, having made an examination of this kind, have been badly treated afterwards in consequence. As there is nothing to lose, and a very great deal to gain by the adoption of the Amendment, I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will concede the point.

An inspection by the men themselves is worth all the other inspection put together; but there is some doubt whether, as the clause now stands, that sort of inspection could be frequently carried out. I am sensible of the force of the objections which have been urged by the Home Secretary to the proposal that the inspection should be compulsory. I am prepared to admit that the inspection cannot be made compulsory, but I think it is our duty to provide for an inspection in some other manner. Now, in Lanarkshire and in other parts of the United Kingdom where there is not a strong organization among the miners themselves, this power to inspect the mine by the working men is a completely a dead letter, and until Parliament revives it and makes it cease to be a dead letter, and a really useful and effective enactment, it will be impossible to put any Mines Regulation Bill upon a practical and satisfactory footing. I would, therefore urge upon the Committee the propriety of accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Donegal as it is proposed to be amended by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire (Mr. T. D. Bolton).

As I understand the objection of the hon. Member for Morpeth, it is against taking men from one mine to inspect another. My own opinion is that it would be highly objectionable to give power, in this Bill, to the miners to make an inspection from time to time, and then to allow them to decline to make the inspection themselves, but to bring in their neighbours without limit. If we enact provisions of that nature, it will be clear that the miners themselves are unfit to protect their own lives and interests. Let me ask what the Government inspection has been established for? The Government Inspector is bound to come whenever he is called upon by the men working in the mine in order to save them from the kind of obloquy which appears to have attached to them in Scotland, but which certainly does not attach to them in any other place that I know of. All I can say is that I could at this moment lay my hand on at least 500 miners who are capable of passing an examination in scientific attainments. Indeed, I should be prepared to-morrow to find 80,000 miners in the North of England who are enrolled in the very best Provident Societies. As a matter of fact, I do not know many cases where I could not lay my hand upon a man who is quite as capable of sitting here as a Member of this House as I am myself, or any other hon. Member, and yet it seems to be inferred that working colliers are such fools that they cannot be trusted to look after their own lives and interests. I believe that before many years have passed this measure will be looked upon as a thing belonging to the past, and as being applicable only to a very crude state of society. I am certain it will be found that there are many men among the large body of working miners who are far better able to take care of their own interests than 670 Members sitting in this House. I cannot help thinking that the attempt we are now making to nurse these men is altogether uncalled for. Are we to take them to their work, and put their comforters around their necks, bring them back when their day's labour is ended, and tuck them up in their beds at night? This is a kind of grandmotherly legislation which I do not think the men themselves will appreciate.

I rise to support the Amendment. I speak only of Yorkshire, because I know more about Yorkshire than any other county; and I feel convinced that when this measure has passed, and it is put in force, unless there is some such provision as this, the men who have been employed to examine the workings in a mine, and who have reported unfavourably of them, will be liable to be turned away either directly or indirectly from the colliery or pit in which they have been working. It will be impossible for them to accept the terms which may be offered to them, and they will feel themselves bound to leave the colliery. It is all very well for the hon. Baronet to talk about grandmotherly legislation; but I know that the Amendment is very necessary, because managers do put a gag on miners employed in the pit, and if any man chooses to speak his own mind, as certain as he does so the manager will lay hold of the fact as an excuse for getting rid of him. I therefore urge upon the Home Secretary, as he has already accepted many Amendments in the hope of making the Bill really workable, that he will place in the hands of the men themselves the power of looking after their own interests. At the present moment, although there is a permissive power of inspection, the miners themselves feel that unless they are thoroughly organized they are unable to do the work. I do not understand that the Government intend to appoint a large number of Sub-Inspectors in order to see that this work of inspection shall be more efficiently carried out than it is at present; and if they do not intend to entertain a proposal of that kind, this Amendment is absolutely necessary for the protection of the miners, and even for the protection of the mineowners themselves.

So far as the inspection of mines is concerned, the existing staff of Inspectors is altogether inadequate, even to permit an annual examination of each mine. The hon. Baronet the Member for Durham (Sir Joseph Pease) seems to doubt the necessity of examining the mine.

No, no!

I would only remind hon. Members that the Commission on Accidents in Mines reported strongly upon the great importance of an inspection of the mine; and year after year the Reports of the Inspectors have urged the necessity of an adequate and thorough inspection. I find that attention has been called to the violation of the principle involved in this clause, and also to the irritation which its exercise produces. We were told in the Report of the Inspectors for 1886 that over and over again this power of inspection was not exercised in the way in which it ought to have been. It was only in a comparatively few instances that any inspection whatever was carried out, and the general feeling seems to have been that whenever an inspection has been made there has been a tendency, on the part of the employers, to make it unpleasant for the workmen. Even when, the inspection has taken place, it has been unsatisfactory, because the workmen themselves have evinced an inclination to excuse anything that they find to be wrong, and to make matters satisfactory to the masters. I think it is of the utmost importance that the miners should be able to appoint monthly Inspectors, and that they should have power to select men to peform the work of inspection who would be under no fear or terror, so far as the owners are concerned. We may be told, no doubt, that it is unreasonable to suppose that the mineowners will persecute men for giving a faithful Report; but I would submit to the Committee that the question is, whether this power is a reasonable one, and whether it does or does not exist? If it does exist, and an inspection takes place, the same evils will result, even if the power were real, and not imaginary.

I hope the Committee will not continue to discuss this small matter at any length.

This small matter?

Yes; it is a very small matter, when we consider the other important questions which are to be brought forward. The hon. Member for Morpeth has himself said that inspection, in order to be satisfactory, should be conducted by the men employed in the mine.

The right hon. Gentleman does me no injustice. I did express that opinion, and I adhere to it. I think it is best that the workmen who are employed in a particular mine should be the men to inspect that mine, and I must say that most of the cases which have been referred to are entirely outside my own experience. As a matter of fact, I believe the condition of things is such that the only satisfactory inspection should be conducted by the miners employed in a particular pit. But, at the same time, I do not think that any harm would result if the Home Secretary were to accept the Amendment, and, by so doing, concede that there are oases in which it is necessary that independent outsiders should be brought in. It has been pointed out that whenever an action of that kind would be necessary it would only be so because the men who are working in a pit are so disorganized that they are incapable of protecting themselves. In such a ease it is likely that their interests would be better secured by getting men employed in other mines to conduct the inspection.

I am quite willing to meet the views of hon. Members opposite if I can. I quite agree with the importance of am examination of the mine by the working miners, and I am, therefore, willing to accept in substance the Amendment of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, by inserting after "two of their number" the words "or any two practical working miners."

May I suggest to the Committee that the effect of this proposal would be to establish an independent and unofficial staff of examiners. I cannot say that I concur with the proposal to place this power of selecting examiners not employed in the mine in the hands of the working miners themselves, seeing that it will take away responsibility from the persons who ought to be held responsible—namely, the manager, the agent, and the mine-owner. I do not think it is advisable that that should be done.

I must point out to the Committee that if the words were inserted "two of their number, or two practical working miners," it would suggest that two of their number were not practical working miners. I think it ought to be "two other practical miners."

I think it would be better to say "two practical working miners."

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that "two practical miners" would be preferable. I attach the greatest importance to retaining the words "two of their number."

Order, order! Those words are retained. The question now is what words are to be inserted after the word "number."

Then I submit that "any two practical miners" ought to be the wording of the Amendment. If the Home Secretary can see his way to accept those works I think much valuable time may be saved. If he does not, I am afraid it will be necessary to have a debate which may extend to some length. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will prevent further waste of time by accepting the Amendment.

I made an offer to the Committee some time ago, and there is a very slight difference between the words I propose to accept and the words "two practical miners."

The objection is a very simple one, because the Amendment which the Government propose to accept only provides that the men who are to be employed to inspect the mine shall be taken from some other pit than the pit which is to be examined, and there is a fear that the men selected under such circumstances, and who would, of course, be easily identified, may be made amenable to the discipline of the manager afterwards for the course they have taken.

I desire to move an Amendment to omit from the Amendment the word "working." The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of this question as being a very small matter. So far from sharing that opinion, I am prepared to say frankly that if this Amendment is not adopted, as far as I can see, the Bill will not be worth accepting, at any rate, in those portions of the country where the miners are not thoroughly organized. It is perfectly clear that if you have an efficient system of inspection by practical miners themselves, acting on behalf of working colliers in the mines, that you would have a safeguard which at present does not exist. I think this is the most practicable and useful provision which can possibly be inserted in the Bill, and I know that the men themselves are exceedingly anxious to secure it. They feel that if they are compelled to accept "two of their own number" in any particular mine, or if they are restricted to "two practical miners at present engaged in the working of a mine," they will not be placed in that position of perfect in- dependence which they consider necessary to attain in order that the work may be efficiently done. If we insert the word "working" we confine the inspection to men actually employed in the mine. Everybody knows that it would be very simple for an employer to lay his hand on any particular individual employed in his own mine who might be selected to perform this invidious duty, and he would be able to point out to neighbouring mineowners that these individuals had been lending themselves to a system which was opposed to the interests of the employers as a body. The fear which such action may inspire would be fatal to any system of efficient inspection by the men or their representatives, and it would be just as fatal to have the men drawn from another pit as it would be for the inspection to be adopted by the men employed in the pit themselves. If you have a man who is a practical miner, and who has been a practical working miner for years past, and who has the confidence of the men who select him, what difference can it make for the purposes of inspection whether in the present week, or the present mouth, or the present year, he is engaged as a working miner? Indeed, I would suggest that it is far better that he should not be a working miner, but that he should be in a position of perfect independence in respect of all the employers of labour in the country. With this view, I beg to move the omission of the word "working."

I am glad to find that the Committee are coming round to my view. I think it would be very much better, if it is practicable, not to take a working miner employed in the colliery. I therefore think we should be doing a valuable service by omitting the word "working," because there are a considerable number of collieries in certain parts of the country which are not properly organized. I think the effect of adopting the Amendment would be that in some districts the men would appoint practical working miners, who would become important additions to the body of official Inspectors, and who would really form an independent body of Inspectors. It is quite certain that the present staff of Inspectors would be altogether inadequate to discharge this duty; but I believe, further, that the colliers themselves would arrange to appoint thoroughly practical working miners to do the work, and that, in the end, the men so selected would be withdrawn from the work of the colliery, and would become the most important assistants to the work of inspection we could possibly get.

May I point out to the Home Secretary that in the event of a working miner being appointed to do continuous work of this kind, in the event of his going from one mine to another, the retention of the word "working" would place him in this position—that it would be impossible for him to examine any other mine than that in which he had been absolutely working himself.

I certainly entertain a strong objection to the omission of the word "working." If that word were excised, it would leave it open for any two practical miners who might be neighbouring mining engineers to be called in; and what I object to is that in that case it would not amount to an inspection by the workmen themselves. I am perfectly prepared to allow the working miners to appoint any two men of their own class they like; but we want to avoid any dispute among the workmen which might be involved by allowing the inspection of a colliery by mining engineers employed in neighbouring works. The words "any two practical miners not being mining engineers" would include all the secretaries of Trades Unions who have been practical miners, and would not involve the necessity of their being actually engaged in work at the time of their inspection. Mineowners do not object to an inspection being made by the men themselves; but what they want to avoid is that in any dispute among the workmen a colliery should be involved in an inspection by the engineer of a neighbouring mine.

That objection might be met by inserting the word "colliery."

The word "colliery" would not do, because we have ironstone mines, and the miners employed in them are not called "colliers."

The same objection might apply to the use of the word "mining engineer," because we do not regard a mining engineer as a miner. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnard Castle says the use of the word "colliery" is objectionable, and that there are many miners who are not colliers. But the term is one which is thoroughly understood. May I point out to the Home Secretary that if he insists upon including the word "working" in the Amendment, it will have the practical effect of prohibiting the miners in any district from selecting any of my hon. Friends around me to undertake an inspection of a mine, notwithstanding the fact that many of them have had very considerable experience in the working of mines. I submit that if the Amendment is carried in its present form, it will be quite open to any owner to object to any hon. Member of this House, however great his practical experience may have been. The effect of the Amendment would be to shut out myself and many of my hon. Friends from acting in the capacity of Inspector of a mine, although some of us have had 20 and 30 years' experience as working miners. I do not think that that is the intention of the Home Secretary; but I am afraid that it would be the effect of the Amendment if the word "working" is retained in it. I therefore trust that the right hon. Gentleman will feel inclined to drop that word.

The compromise which I offered to the Committee was that these inspections, if conducted by outsiders, should not be carried out by a class of professional men who are not really working miners. What I was anxious to secure was that the Inspectors should be men engaged in the actual working of a mine, and not amateur Inspectors. That is what is meant by the Amendment. I intend no more than that, and I think that no more is effected by it. Am I to understand hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that they cannot trust the working miners employed in the mine themselves, and that, therefore, it is desirable to go outside, and to obtain the assistance of men who may have been working miners, but who are professional men, not really engaged in the working of a mine?

I am sorry that the knowledge possessed by the right hon. Gentleman of the law and its administration is not such as to lead him to conclude that if the word "working" is retained in the Amendment it will be sufficient to prevent either myself or any of my hon. Friends from acting in the capacity of Inspector. I think any Lawyer would say that the retention of the word "working" would effectually prevent us from acting in any such capacity.

What we object to, and what we are not prepared to submit to under this clause, is that men who may have been working miners years ago should come in now as unauthorized Inspectors. It would provide no additional safety for the workmen that such men should be able to come in to inspect the mine when their knowledge may be altogether out of date. I do not see why we should allow such persons any greater latitude than men who are practical working colliers employed in the mine.

I must take exception to the law as it has been laid down by the Home Secretary. I doubt very much whether any Court of Law could be got to say that a working miner is a different person from a man working in a mine. That being so, I would suggest that we should have a practical miner, or a practical person who is, or has been, a working miner, and who has been so within a reasonable period. I think that would meet the views of my hon. Friends; but if we leave in the words "working miner," the person appointed as Inspector must be a person who at that moment is working in the mine.

I should like to point out to the Home Secretary what would be the effect of this Amendment without the word "working." All these men could do would be to report the state of the mine, and if danger is apprehended to call the attention of the Inspector of the district to that danger. That is the entire amount of their power. Then what possible harm could it do if this report is made by a man who is a practical miner, but who at the actual time at which he makes his inspection is not working in connection with any mine? I hope the Home Secretary will, take that point into consideration, and will allow this discussion to close by withdrawing the word "working," the retention of which will only occasion great annoyance and inconvenience to the men, and cannot possibly do any good.

I do not think that the Home Secretary would be well advised to leave out this word. The real effect of the Amendment would be to provide for the appointment of an unofficial Inspector of the mine, who might be any man the miners might choose to select. I should value very much the opinion of miners actually employed in a mine; but I do not think it right to have an unofficial inspection. The only real course is to appoint two men who are employed in the mine selected by the miners themselves, and I think they ought to be encouraged to carry out periodical inspection. I do not think, however, that we ought to frame the clause in such a way as to make it possible to appoint a miners' agent to conduct the inspection.

I would venture to suggest that the words to be inserted should be "or any two persons not being mining engineers, who are, or have been, practical working miners."

I have no objection to withdraw my Amendment in favour of those words.

As I desire to bring the discussion to a close, I am quite ready to withdraw my Amendment also.

I am very sorry to feel it my duty to oppose the Amendment; but I do so on the ground that if it is adopted a man may be appointed who was working in a mine 20 years ago, and then took up with agitation. [Cries of "Agreed!"] I certainly know that there are men of that character, and I am afraid that we may run the risk of handing over the inspection of a mine to agitators who really know nothing about the present conditions under which a mine is worked.

I now propose to add a new rule—

"Rule 38.—No person shall be allowed to work alone in the mine until he has had three years' experience of working in a mine under the direct supervision of a skilled workman."

I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment. I regret to say that these words—

"No person shall be allowed to work alone in a mine until he has had three years' experience of working in a mine under the direct supervision of a skilled workman,"

As I understand the object of ray hon. Friend, it is to secure that no person shall be allowed to work as a hewer or coal getter in any working place in a mine until he has had three years' experience. Many persons have written to me making a similar suggestion, almost in the very words of this Amendment; but most of them desire the restriction to be applied to persons who are actually engaged in a working place in getting coal.

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that this is an important Amendment in the direction of protecting life. There was very little of the evidence which came before the Royal Commission, to which more importance was attached than that which related to the number of accidents which happen from unskilled persons being allowed to perform certain kinds of work in the mines. The Amendment may require some modification; and the hon. Member who moves it has himself intimated that in its existing form it is probably too strict. It deals, however, with a matter of considerable importance, and I certainly hope that something in the direction indicated -will be adopted,

The last thing that any mineowner would wish would be that unskilled workmen should be employed in the mine. What I want to know, however, is how you are to carry out a provision of this kiud—namely, that no man is to be able to work alone until he has had three years' experience in the mine. What is to be the machinery by which you are to be able to find out that fact?

I think the Home Secretary was somewhat unnecessarily severe upon my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Lanark. The object of the Amendment is perfectly clear, and it is to provide that no man shall be permitted to hew or cut coal in a mine until he is able to give some guarantee that he has a knowledge of the work, and can safely take his place among other men employed in the mine. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that it is the custom in most trades and professions in this country to require an apprenticeship, and if apprenticeship is necessary in any case, I am certainly not acquainted with any industry in which it is more necessary than in getting coal. May I add that the right hon. Gentleman himself must have underwent a considerable apprenticeship before he was called to the Bar, and that he must have passed difficult examinations.

No; he had only to eat a certain number of dinners.

The qualification, then, for the Bar is eating dinners. I certainly was not aware that that was the only qualification. However, there is a kind of apprenticeship required, and I think that an apprenticeship in regard to mining matters is quite as necessary as an apprenticeship in many other industries and professions. If steps were taken to enforce an apprenticeship a great deal more strictly than we do now in regard to mining, I think it would be far better for that industry and for the prosperity of the country.

There is one consideration I should like to bring under the notice of the Home Secretary—namely, that there has been constant complaints of the employment of unskilled labourers in mines who have been entirely unfit for the work, and their employment has resulted in frequent accidents.

May I point out that the words of the Amendment, as they stand, are very wide? I think that the intention of the hon. Member for North-East Lanark (Mr. Donald Crawford) in moving the Amendment is perfectly plain; but the words he proposes are so wide that they would include all the boys and other persons who are engaged in minor operations in the mine. The Amendment would seem to lay down that no young person whatever should be employed in the mine until he has had three years' experience. I am quite sure that that cannot be the intention of the hon. Member.

I think that the object of the clause now under discussion is a very good one; but I would suggest that "three years" is too long a term, and that it would be better to insert "two years." As the Amendment is now worded I am afraid it would be unworkable. I do not object to the object of it; but I think that the limit it imposes upon persons employed in the mine before they are to become coal-getters is too long.

I rose with my hon. Friend for a similar purpose— namely, to point out that the Amendment, as it stands, would never work, because a little boy who is now employed at one of the ventilation doors is necessarily left alone for hours together, and generally begins a miner's life in that way. I do not see how it would be possible to carry out a provision that no person should be allowed to work alone until he has had three years experience of working in. the mine. As a rule, no pitman goes in and works alone.

I am afraid I am suffering the penalty of not having expressed the Amendment in sufficiently precise terms; but in introducing it I stated that I did not mean it to apply to boys or persons in charge of horses, but only to men employed in getting coal in the working places. I am quite ready to accept the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, that—

"No person shall be allowed to work alone at a, working place as a hewer unless he is under the direct supervision of a skilled workman."

I would propose the substitution of these words—

"No person shall be allowed to work alone as a hewer in a working place until he has had two years' experience of working underground."

I hope the Committee will not accept this Amendment, especially with regard to the Proviso that he shall have had two years' experience.

That point is not now before the Committee. That will form a subsequent question.

I would suggest that the words "in a mine" would come in better afterwards.

I am of opinion that this is about the most important part of the whole Bill we have been discussing. The necessity of a periodical inspection has been urged over and over again as the only means of guarding against accident and loss of life from casualties in the working of a mine. It is, I think, of the utmost importance that no person should be allowed to be employed as a coal-getter until he has had some years' experience of such work. The training he ought to have should be of a practical character; for instance, a person who has been employed for two years in driving horses cannot be said to have had a practical training as a coal-getter.

Would it not be better to say "until he has had two years' experience of working under ground?"

That would not be enough, because driving a horse would be working under ground, and so would be the building of a stall. If time permitted I could give numberless instances to prove the necessity of a practical training. About 41 per cent of the number of deaths which occur from accidents in mines arise from the want of practical knowledge. I should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to the Report of some of Her Majesty's Inspectors on this subject. If the Committee will permit me, I will read one or two extracts. Mr. Cadman says—

"The principal safeguards on which miners must rely against these accidents are careful and intelligent attention to the timbering of the roof and sides, and keeping a constant watch for any change or peculiarity which may appear in the overlying strata. The responsibility of securing his working place rests with the collier, subject, of course, to the direction of the overman, and very considerable skill and knowledge of the local peculiarities of the seams worked is necessary to make a good timberman. For this reason, it is very de- sirable that young men should be practically trained in this branch of their duty, and have the benefit of the experience of old and tried colliers, who, by years of service, have become acquainted with the best ways of dealing with the dangers and the difficulties which are daily and hourly presenting themselves."

"The death roll caused by falls of roof is so serious and continuous, and so stationary without showing signs of improvement, that it would appear as if some extraordinary step is needed to bring about a favourable change, and without weighing too nicely the reasonableness of any demand in this direction."

I think that it is of importance to secure that experienced men who have had a practical training shall be employed in working a mine. I have all my life protested against the doctrine which has been laid down that a system of apprenticeship as applied to manual labour is a system to be condemned, for I see hon. Members opposite who belong to the learned professions, and they are quite aware that before they were able to select their profession they were required to pass through a term of probation. It is an absurdity to suppose that a similar provision should not apply to the manual professions as they may be called. An hon. Gentleman just now talked of introducing a system of protection, but in what respect does the protection provided, both in regard to the law and to the profession to which I belong, differ from the protection which should be afforded in the case of coal-mining?

The present Amendment does not raise the general question, but only whether the period is to be two or three years.

I do not know what course the Representatives of labour intend to take on this occasion, but I think they are perfectly entitled to demand protection for the miners. I shall express no opinion upon the matter myself, because it is not one which I am competent to discuss; but I do think that those who represent the working miners in this House are just as much entitled to demand whatever number of years' experience they consider necessary for the protection of life as the members of the medical profession are in their profession, in the interests of the general public.

If I am in Order, I should like to submit an Amendment which I think might have the effect of bringing this discussion to a close, so that we may be able to get on with the rest of the Bill. I would suggest that the words should be—

"No person be allowed to work in a mine as a coal-getter until he has had two years' experience of working in the mine under the supervision of a skilled workman."

I understand the desire to be that any person who may have been employed in the mine as a horse-driver shall not be allowed to work as a coal-getter unless he has had two years' experience of coal-getting.

Yes; that is what we want.

Then I think the object will be secured by saying "two years' experience of such work."

I think the Amendment suggested by the Home Secretary is preferable to my own, and I am quite willing to accept it.

There is only one point I would venture to suggest. During the time a novice is acting under the supervision of a skilled workman, he would, of course, only receive limited wages, and it is the highest ambition of every man to get as much as he possibly can. I know that in many instances a miner refuses to marry until he attains the position of a coal-getter. It would, therefore, be desirable to make the term of probation as short as possible consistent with adequate protection to the workmen.

Is it intended that the clause should be retrospective? Will it be the duty of the managers to go through the mines and ascertain whether all the men who are working are duty qualified?

No.

I fail to see what means there are of knowing whether a man has had the necessary experience or not.

ruled that Amendments relating to the inspection of mines, and to the testing of safety lamps, in the names of Mr. Maurice Healy and Mr. P. Stanhope, were out of Order. On the Motion of Mr. JACOBY, Amendment made,

In page 35, at end of clause by adding: "That in any case where a dispute occurs between the men and the manager of any mine respecting the carrying out of the Mines Regulation Act, and the inspector be applied to, he shall notify both parties, in order that they may appoint representatives to accompany him while prosecuting his inquiry."

moved to add, at the end of the clause, a provision that "men and boys be allowed to ride as soon as they come to the shaft."

As a question of Order, I wish to know whether the Amendments which stand in my name and in that of the hon. Member for Morpeth are covered by previous Amendments. My Amendment provides "that the sump hole at the bottom of the shaft shall be protected by fencing."

The Amendment of the hon. Member is provided for by Rule 12, which requires the fencing of the entrances to shafts.

My object in moving the Amendment is to provide for a case which frequently occurs in Scotland, where men and boys are detained for an undue length of time in the works. After having been at work for eight or nine hours they are frequently kept at the bottom of the pit simply in consequence of the caprice of the manager. As the engines are working all the time it would be quite easy to take up the men and boys as soon as they reach the bottom of the pit. I think the Amendment is one with which the Committee generally will agree. I believe that the Representatives of the working miners are strongly in favour of it, and I trust that the Home Secretary will accept it.

May I remind the hon. Member that it may be necessary, in order to secure the safety of the mine, to carry on the business of it in a particular method; and if any individual is to be at liberty to stop the ordinary working at any moment great inconvenience might result, as well as danger in the working of the mine."

I have an Amendment on this point which, if this Amendment is carried, may be ruled out of Order, although it is much wider in its scope. My Amendment provides that—

"When any workman, employed in contract work underground, in any mine to which this Act applies, shall desire to leave off work, it shall be incumbent on the mineowner or manager to arrange for his being taken to the surface without any unnecessary delay; and it shall be the duty of the mineowner to adopt a special rule as hereinafter provided for carrying this stipulation into effect."

I do not wish to propose any Amendment that is unreasonable, or to interfere in any way with the proper working of the mine. But I deny that the adoption of this Amendment will interfere with the working of the mine. All I desire is that when the men and boys have finished the recognized hours of labour they may be allowed to go up the pit, and not be detained, while minerals are being carried up, entirely at the caprice of the manager.

I must point out to the hon. Member that the Amendment does indirectly interfere with that of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. S. Williamson), which is of a much wider character.

I would make an appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanarkshire to withdraw his Amendment, in order that the full discussion which the subject deserves may be taken when the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock is reached.

Under the circumstances I will not press the Amendment.

I have now to move, in page 35, at end of Clause 50, to insert—

"That, in cases where gas has been found in a mine, no furnace shall be used for purposes of ventilation for the twelve months immediately following: and, when fans or other mechanical appliances are used as a means of ventilation, that two sets of machinery be kept ready for action, the one to be used in case of accident to the other."

I must point out to the hon. Member that the first part of the Amendment is inconsistent with Rule 2, which was agreed to yesterday.

I was afraid you might hold that the question of ventilation in respect of gas has already been dealt with, and that there might possibly be an objection to the first part of the Amendment. But the same objection will not apply to the second part of it.

No doubt it h very desirable that wherever possible there should be spare machinery; but there are a large number of small mines throughout the country where it would be impossible to carry out this provision. If the matter is dealt with at al it must be dealt with by a special rule It would be impracticable to put the small mineowners to the expense of pro viding this double machinery.

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment He seems to be under the impression that the moment an accident happens it a mine all the ventilation is cut off, and it becomes dangerous to remain in the pit. That is not the case; and after an accident has happened a fair amount o ventilation can be kept up for several hours, and there is ample time for the men to get out of the mine. It is there fore unnecessary to put the mineowners; to this additional expense.

After the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, I will not press the Amendment.

I have now to move to add as a New Clause—

"That no smudge or small coal shall be left down any mine which the Inspector of the district has stated to be fiery, or dry, or dusty."

I think the words of the Amendment are too wide to be inserted in a general rule. Every man who left smudge or small coal down a mine would be liable to penalties, if the Inspector of the district had declared it to be fiery or dangerous. The words of the Amendment are very indefinite, although I sympathize with the object of the hon. Member, and probably it will be possible to insert a special rule.

In the Yorkshire mines all the coal is riddled and the dust taken away, and that is what I want to secure in all cases.

I will give the matter the best consideration I can, with the view of dealing with it by a special rule.

We have added a great number of general rules, and I am not sure that the words "unless he proves," in line 15, will be quite right enough. We will consider this matter in conjunction with what has been already done before the Report.

I have on the Paper an Amendment on page 35, line 27, after "mine," to insert the words—

"Such special rules shall specify which, if any, of the mines or seams of mines to which they apply, are dry and dusty or are fiery."

I have put down the following Amendment, in line 5, to leave out "months" and insert "weeks." The sub-section, if amended as I propose, would read—

"Any complaint or information made or laid in pursuance of this Act shall (save as otherwise expressly provided by this Act) be made or laid within three weeks from the time when the matter of the information or complaint arose."

I quite sympathize with the objects of the managers the hon. Member refers to, to whom vicarious responsibility attaches under this Act, but it certainly seems to me that three months is a period quite short enough.

I beg to move an Amendment in line 7, after the word "arose." I wish to add "such complaint or information may be made or laid by a common informer." The object of this is that there may be open to those who cannot be injuriously affected by anything which has happened, to give evidence supporting complaints upon which summary decisions may be taken. I will not detain the Committee longer than is necessary to state the object of the Amendment.

I think the hon. Member's Amendment is unnecessary, unless it were meant to over-ride a limitation such as that in Clause 66. The words "common informer" are not applicable. Anyone can prosecute, and the only offence in which consent is necessary to a prosecution is a case in which there is vicarious responsibility, where the owner, agent, or manager, is made responsible for what is done by someone else—in a case where the person prosecuted has done nothing wrong himself, but can be prosecuted for the fault of another.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal has moved this Amendment at the request of the miners. It is a subject which has often come before our conferences, and, no doubt, so far as the phraseology is concerned, it is objectionable. It is open to the objection raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who, no doubt, is an authority upon this point. At the same time, the object aimed at was to give a power of prosecuting in the case of managers and others. The right hon. Gentleman sympathizes with the object we have in view in this Amendment, and I do not know whether he may not find it possible to deal with the matter in some other way. If it is possible, I have no doubt he will do it.

But under Section 66 any person may prosecute another who has committed an offence under the Act. Clause 66 introduces a limitation against the prosecution of owners, agents, and managers, for offences which they have not committed themselves—that is to say, vicarious offences —offences committed, by some person in the colliery, for whom the owner, agent, or manager is made responsible. In such a case Clause 66 imposes a restriction. If the hon. Member wishes to object to that—and I am not sure that he does—the proper place to raise the objec- tion would be on Clause 66. For instance, if an owner does not provide an ambulance, or a stretcher, or splints, or bandages, such as we have provided earlier on that he shall keep at the mine, he has committed an offence himself and can be prosecuted by any person. On the other hand, if a workman commits a fault he can be prosecuted himself; but the owner, agent, or manager may also be prosecuted for his fault.

I would point out that Section 66 provides that a prosecution shall not be instituted except by an Inspector, or with the eon-sent in writing of the Secretary of State in cases where the offence committed is not committed personally by the owner, agent, or manager, but by somebody under him for whom he is responsible. Now, what I want to secure is that, with regard, at any rate, to all other cases, it shall be possible to prosecute on the evidence of a common informer. Is there any objection to the introduction of these words—any solid objection? It does not appear to me that they could do any harm.

If there is anything in the proposal as contained in the clause it will apply as much against the employer as against the workman.

I think it will save time if I point out that there is an Amendment on the Paper standing in the name of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Pickard) to leave out the clause and insert a clause which I need not read, which suggests the very thing which is sought to be brought about by my hon. Friend and by other hon. Gentlemen behind me. There the question is properly raised as to whether it should be left in the hands of any person deputed by workmen, or by any workman ordinarily engaged in the mine, to bring an action—I believe that is the limitation put on it— to prosecute any owner, agent, or manager, even for an offence that is not personally committed by them. I think my hon. Friend would serve his object better by withdrawing the Amendment, and taking the discussion on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Normanton.

I beg to move the following Amendment, standing in the name of the late Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. T. Blake). At the end of line 12 to insert the following sub-section:—

"Any person may give evidence as a witness by virtue of this Act upon oath, or upon affirmation or declaration, to speak the truth signed by him. Any person who shall give false evidence upon oath, affirmation, or declaration as aforesaid, shall be guilty of, and may be convicted of, perjury, and may upon conviction be sentenced to imprisonment, with or without bard labour, for any period not exceeding two years."

Either these words express what is the existing law of the land as to judicial oaths, or they do not. If they do, they are unnecessary; and if they do not, they are improper in this Bill. This is not an Oaths Bill, but a Coal Mines Regulation Bill. It is not a Bill for dealing with oaths in any way. If any limitation is to be made in the law as to judicial oaths, it should be done in an Act of Parliament dealing with that matter.

The Amendment does not propose to alter the law, but merely to simplify the practice. At the present moment, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, if a witness under this Act required to give his evidence upon affirmation, he would have to satisfy the person to whom he applied to be allowed to make that affirmation that he was a person upon whom an oath would have no special binding effect on his conscience. I do not wish to go into the whole argument involved in the case which hon. Members will remember was argued before the Court of Appeal; but I shall certainly press this Amendment to a Division if the Government do not consent to it. With a number of men in the position of those for whom this legislation is intended, it is absurd to put upon them the necessity of entering into the discussion of a technical and metaphysical question as to whether a particular form is or is not binding upon the conscience. I regret that the Government should show any hesitation about this at all.

I cannot consent that the law shall be one thing in a criminal inquiry with regard to coal mines, and another thing in every other inquiry.

It is not intended to make it one thing in an ordinary inquiry and another thing in the case of coal mines; but it is intended to clear up what is now doubtful. I have had occasion to bring before the House several times the conduct of magistrates, I County Court Judges, and Coroners, who placed different and contradictory constructions on what was meant by the present state of the law. I will not continue the argument. I was anxious to ascertain the opinion of the Government on the matter, and I shall certainly press for the opinion of the Committee.

I shall support this Amendment, because I wish to see the general law bearing upon the taking of oaths altered.

All we have to do is to recognize conscientious objections which are not religious; but we ought not to upset the whole system of the general law with regard to oaths.

Everyone at present can affirm if he can succeed in. convincing the presiding Judge, whoever he may be—if he can "satisfy" the Judge, according to the Affirmation Act of 1869, that "an oath has no binding effect on his conscience." It is only to obviate the necessity for a subtle argument between the Judge and the counsel as to a collier or anyone else about to give evidence, that I wish to insert these words. My desire is to put a stop to disgraceful squabbles on the subject of the oath.

I have an Amendment on the Paper to leave out, in line 15, the following words: —

"By which conviction, imprisonment, or a fine amounting; to or exceeding one-half the maximum fine is adjudged."

As I understand there is a strong objection entertained to this Amendment in certain quarters, I will not therefore undertake to press it till I hear what the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has to say about it.

I think the hon. and learned Member, by his Amendment, would extend the right of appeal beyond that contained in the Summary Jurisdiction Acts. The hon. Member will find the principle as to these appeals laid down in 42 & 43 Vict. c. 49, s. 19. This section gives the right of appeal where imprisonment or a fine amounting to or exceeding half the maximum fine is imposed, the object being to stop appeals in cases where trumpery fines have been inflicted.

I should like to have heard the opinion of some hon. Members below the Gangway upon this subject. I have been assured that there is a strong feeling amongst the miners that there should be an appeal allowed in all cases.

This clause tends to make the law equal—employers and employed. I think it is right so far; but I wish to make an exception in favour of the manager of a mine. The manager may be an employer, or he may be himself employed; but whether or not he holds a position of great responsibility. The condition of the whole of the mine practically depends upon him. His position is analogous to that of the captain of a ship. He, or the under manager, has to come in contact with the workmen and has to issue orders of all sorts, some of which may be distasteful to the men, although warranted by the circumstances of the position. The danger I want to provide against is, that where there are a great many young men, as there always are in a mine, they shall not be allowed to bring frivolous complaints against the manager merely, you may say, for the sake of having a lark. I trust hon. Members below the Gangway will see that there is nothing in this proposal which is detrimental to the interests of the miners, but that they are only precautionary, in order to avoid such an evil as I have pointed out.

What Amendment is the hon. and gallant Member moving?

All the Amendments I have here affect the same point. My object in moving them is to prevent a manager from being at the mercy of a common informer who may lodge frivolous complaints against him.

But which Amendment is the hon. and gallant Member moving? Because I agree with one of them—namely, that which would put the under manager in the same position as the manager. The third Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member, however, that in line 29, which says leave out "not committed personally by such owner, agent or manager," I object to. These Amendments are totally different in effect.

I was about to move the Amendment in line 28, "before 'manager,' leave out 'or.'" But I will not do so. I will move the Amendment in line 29.

Then I will ask leave to move the hon. and gallant Member's Amendment in line 28.

I beg to move to leave out the word "not" after "Act," in line 29. The clause says—

"No prosecution shall be instituted against the owner, agent or manager of a mine for any offence under this Act not committed person, ally by such owner, agent or manager, &c."

I cannot conceive that the hon. Baronet is serious in moving this Amendment. The effect of it will be this—that no prosecution shall be instituted against the owner, agent, or manager for any offence under this Act, committed by himself, unless he is prosecuted by the Inspector or with the consent of the Secretary of Stats. But in cases where an offence is not committed personally all the world is to be at liberty to prosecute. He is liable for the wrong of another man, and all the world is to be at liberty to prosecute.

Does the hon. Baronet withdraw his Amendment?

Yes.

I beg leave to move, in line 29, to leave out "not committed personally by such owner, agent, or manager." I think a manager who may be employed should be ex- empted from the possibility of being attacked by a common informer for something he does in connection ordinarily with his office as manager. I trust this Amendment will be fairly considered on its merits. I bring it forward in the interest of the safety of the men in our mines, believing that the safety of our mines depends on the managers. There are, as I say, many young men who will be delighted to bring complaints against the manager merely for a lark, and I wish to protect these persons from anything of that sort. I would make them responsible for anything they do personally, and my Amendment would leave them liable to prosecution, if a prosecution is approved of by the Inspector as representing the Secretary of State.

I think I must emphatically decline to agree to this Amendment. I think it is only reasonable that every workman in a mine should have a right to prosecute the owner, agent, or manager, if he does anything personally that is wrong. I think all these four persons—that is to say, the owner, agent, manager, or under manager, require some protection when they are subjected to that extremely harsh rule which is quite exceptional in connection with coal mines, and which does not exist in any other branch of our law—that is to say, that they are made criminally responsible for action that they do not themselves know of. That criminal responsibility has been attached to them for reasons of public policy which I need nut now go into. It is a very harsh law, and when it is introduced there must be a kind of guarantee with regard to it. When a man has done wrong himself and the men suffer, I could not consent that he should not be liable to prosecution by any workman.

I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name—namely, in page 40, after line 37, to add—

"No prosecution shall be instituted against a Coroner for any offence under this Act, except with the consent in writing of a Secretary of State."

I beg to move that the clause be struck out, on the ground that, so far as prosecution is concerned, we as workmen will, under this clause, have no power whatever. It appears first of all that every owner, agent, or manager is to be exempted unless he commits a personal offence. It is a well-known fact that the owner, or agent, or certificated manager, is not always there, and very often delegates his authority to another person; and we think the workmen over whom the person so delegated has authority should have the power of prosecuting the manager in the same sense that the manager has power to prosecute the workman if he commits any offence under this Act. I therefore beg to move the omission of the clause.

I have two Amendments on the Paper—to leave out, in line 41, "within 21 days of the heaving of the case," and to insert "annually, on or before the first day of January;" and also, in line 42, to leave out "thereof," and insert "of all proceedings so taken during the then preceding year." I will not, however, move these Amendments.

I beg to move, in line 4, to leave out all the words after "be"—that is to say, to leave out the words—

"Constituted of two or more Justices of the Peace, sitting as Judges in a Justice of the Peace Court, or of the Sheriff or some other magistrate or officer for the time being empowered by law to do alone any act authorised to be done by more than one Justice of the Peace, and sitting alone or with others at some Court or other place appointed for the administration of justice."

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman move to strike out all the sub-section after the word "be?"

I do.

I entirely approve of the altera- tion. Complaint is made in Scotland that certain classes of prosecution for mining offences might be heard before the Justices, and the desire was to have them universally held before the Sheriff or paid magistrate.

The object of the Amendment I have to move—namely, in line 33, after "provisions," insert the following section:—

"(6.) In any inquiry in Scotland as to the cause of death or of serious injury, any relative of any person whose death may have been caused or who may have suffered serious injury by the explosion or accident with respect to which the inquiry or inquest is being held, shall be at liberty to attend and give evidence, and either in person or by counsel, solicitor, or agent, examine any witness,"

Might I suggest to my hon. Friend what I think will carry out his intention, and, at the same time, not render this clause open to certain objections which it would otherwise be open to? If he were to provide that his Amendment should apply to any public inquiry held under this Act in Scotland, and make it applicable to all kinds of inquiry provided under Section 46 of the Act, I see no objection to it; but I am sure my hon. Friend does not desire, in a small referential clause of this kind, to import into the law of Scotland the whole system of Coronors' inquests. That could not be done according to a decision that was given the other day, as the Committee will see. If my hon. Friend will do what I propose, probably the Committee will see its way to accept that or some similar clause. I move that after the word "Scotland" in the Amendment the words "under this Act" be inserted.

I would suggest another Amendment, to carry out the same idea. In the third line, which refers to "the inquiry or inquest," I would propose to leave out the words "or inquest."

I would point out that this would carry the appearance of relatives at inquiries under Clause 46.

I do not think the right hon. and learned Member for Clackmannan (Mr. J. B. Balfour) quite understands what he has done. In Clause 46, after full consideration, it was deliberately decided not to give: relatives a right to appear at inquiries under it. The Amendment now proposed would have this result—that if the Home Secretary ordered an inquiry in England, the relatives of the injured persons would not have the right to appear; but if the Home Secretary ordered an inquiry in Scotland, those relatives would have the right to appear. The inquiries which would be held under this process would, therefore, be held in two ways.

I am quite alive to the fact that that would he the effect of the Amendment, and it is in view of that that I give my support to it. Might I point out that in Scotland we have no Coroners' inquests, and that, therefore, we have not the opportunity of having representatives of persons killed present at the inquests, with power to give evidence or to examine witnesses, as you have in England under the Common Law. Under these circumstances, as it is not proposed in this Coal Mines Bill to alter our whole system of procedure in these cases, it seems but reasonable that an opportunity should be afforded for the relatives of persons killed or injured to appear at the Secretary of State's inquiry. If this were not conceded, there would be no opportunity in Scotland for these people to appear at all. There would be no opportunity of appearing at such inquiries as were held in connection with the Blantyre colliery accident, or the upsetting of the Daphne. It is most important that persons should have the power of appearing in that way in carrying out inquiries in the interests of the public. I venture to submit that, inasmuch as this would be the only opportunity where such persons would be permitted in Scotland to attend an inquiry, to give evidence or examine witnesses, it would be throwing the whole process out of balance if the Amendment were not accepted as I propose. If the hon. and learned Member will reflect that in Scotland there will be an opportunity afforded for persons appearing at inquiries under this Amendment, as will be afforded in England, he will see that it is desirable to admit this proposal.

I am not objecting to the Amendment, but I am pointing out how it will work. I am pointing out that by striking out the words "or inquest," and introducing the words "under this Act," may in England defeat the object of the inquiry.

This Amendment would practically be an anomaly. We rejected a provision of this kind on Clause 46, which it was sought to apply to Great Britain generally. It was proposed to give the relatives this right in all cases; but the Committee refused to assent to the proposal on the ground that the inquiry was not one at which anyone had a right to appear. The provision applies not only to such cases as the Daphne, but to cases of inquiry where there has been no death. Therefore the hon. Member proposes that anyone should have a right to appear at these inquiries in this country; but that in Scotland they should have that right, though the two inquiries—the inquiry in Scotland and the inquiry in England —may be exactly identical in form. The hon. Member may be sure that if relatives are permitted to appear as a right it may make a great difference as to the course of the inquiry. If you give them a right to appear they will in all probability employ counsel, and go into the whole matter, as if the inquiry were an inquiry into a question affecting conflicting parties. As a matter of fact, however, the inquiry—and it was so decided by the Committee—would be a matter merely for the enlightenment of the Home Secretary, who will be the dominus of the whole proceeding. I have been concerned in several inquiries during the short time I have been Secretary of State, and my knowledge of the course which has been adopted with regard to them is that these persons are always allowed to attend; but that power is vested in those conducting the inquiry to stop them when they are irrelevant. When they are stopped in this way the Court can proceed to another part of the investigation. That would not be possible if an appearance was put in by these persons as a right, and they had the power of employing counsel and calling witnesses in the ordinary way.

In order that something of this kind might be moved, I withdrew an Amendment I had on the Paper at an earlier period of the evening. It was put down to establish something like the Coroner's inquest in the case of fatal explosions in Scotland. When I withdrew my Amendment I understood that there would be brought forward, perhaps by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) at a later stage of the Committee, something to provide for this want, which admittedly exists in Scotland. Now, with regard to this particular suggestion, it seems to me that the inquiry would not be at all on the same footing as inquiries carried on in England, because inquiries carried on in England are on oath. Every witness is sworn; but, unless I am mistaken, the inquiry directed by the Secretary of State would be under some authority not competent to administer an oath. Therefore, the amount of importance and solemnity attaching to the inquiry in Scotland would not be at all the same thing as appertains to the inquiry in England. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary whether he sees his way to make any Amendment in the clause by which this want that I refer to would be supplied?

There is power to administer an oath at these inquiries; but really we have discussed this whole question before, on Clause 46, and the proposal now submitted was negatived.

There is one effect of this Amendment that I am sure my hon. Friend did not intend, and which it would be necessary to provide against if the Amendment were carried. According to the Amendment, the relatives of injured parties would have power to appear at an inquest. There might be claims to attend on the part of a vast number of parties, and I think if the proposal were accepted it would be necessary to limit it in some manner or other. I think that a limitation of this kind should be accepted—namely, that no more than one person should be allowed to attend as representing the relatives of the whole of the injured persons. There should only be one person with a right to appear by counsel to examine witnesses in the interest of the injured persons.

I have read the words of Section 8 in Clause 49, and I do not see why all these evils should exist in Scotland which do not arise in England. The words in Section 8 are not the ipsissima verba of the Act of last year; but they are words put in by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. If these words are applicable to England, why not give us some similar words for Scotland? There is nothing in this Act bearing on the rights of relatives to attend at these inquiries in Scotland. If the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is persistent in his objection to this Amendment, let him add these words after the concluding words of my Amendment— "subject, nevertheless, to the order of the Court."

I understand this Amendment refers to any inquiries under this Act. In the Amendment moved on Clause 46 it was proposed that at such inquiries the owner, agent, manager, or under manager, or any of the workmen of the mine, or any relatives of any person killed or injured, should be at liberty to attend and examine witnesses. That Amendment was negatived, and, being negatived, cannot be raised again.

Allow me, with all deference to you, to point out that after Clause 46 was dealt with we came to Clause 49; and, in so far as the acceptance of this Section 8 of Clause 49 was concerned, the Committee overruled what was done on Clause 46. And I am simply pleading that Scotland should have the same right and justice that England has got under Clause 49 and under Clause 46.

This proposal affecting every inquiry under this Act does not refer to Clause 49, but to Clause 46. It is, therefore, inadmissible, having been negatived on Clause 46.

I certainly am under the impression that the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) withdrew an Amendment in order to allow this point to be discussed, and we have been looking forward to the right to discuss this matter under existing circumstances. I ask you, Sir, with all respect, whether the words which the hon. Member now proposes do not convey additional matter, which exempts them from your ruling?

No.

Before you put the Question may I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary whether he will introduce some words on Report, which will do justice to the relatives of these people in Scotland? I think it is only fair.

In consideration of the number of cousins in Scotland I will give my best attention to the matter.

I really must protest—

Order, order!

This Amendment, as I understand, is solely applicable to Scotland. Does not that exclude it from the general application of Clause 46?

Order, order! What is universal includes a particular application.

I think we had better let the clause pass.

The clause says—

"A person who is the owner, agent, or manager of any mine, or a miner or miner's agent, or the father, son, or brother of such owner, agent, or manager, or of a miner or miner's agent, or who is a director of a company being the owner of a mine, ‥‥ act as a member of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction in respect of offences under this Act."

Yes.

I beg to move as an Amendment to this clause, in line 27, to leave out the words, "and shall be carried to the Consolidated Fund," in order to substitute—

"Paid over to the Treasurer for the time being of any special or permanent fund, approved by the Secretary of State, established for the relief of sufferers by mining accidents, where the offence was committed, and where certain fines were inflicted."

I have very grave doubts whether this is an Amendment which the hon. Member can move, as it proposes to deal with money which goes into the public funds. A private Member cannot move to apply public money to private purposes, however small the sum and however valuable the object maybe.

But I would point out that this is not money which has ever been public money. It is money which will have to be dealt with in the public funds ultimately, but until it is handed over to the Consolidated Fund it is not public money.

On behalf of the Exchequer I would like to say a word on this matter. I would remind the Committee that at this moment the law of the land is precisely that which is proposed to be done by this Bill. The 68th section of the existing Coal Mines Regulation Act provides—

"That, except as aforesaid, all penalties imposed in pursuance of this Act shall be paid into Her Majesty's Exchequer, and carried to the Consolidated Fund."

Under one of the clauses of the old Act the Home Secretary has power to hand over the money to some fund, and the reason this course was not adopted in this case to which I have referred was that it had already gone into the Consolidated Fund; but my view is that this money should go to the benefit of the sufferers in mining accidents. I believe the feeling of the Committee is with the Amendment, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will find some way of settling the matter.

It appears to me that this Amendment is in the wrong place, and that it should come earlier in the clause.

We are always led into some difficulty or another when the words of an Amendment are not exactly before us. I appreciate the hon. Member's view, but I would call his attention to the fact that at the present moment the Home Secretary may direct the fines paid to be transferred to the relatives of the persons injured. All that my hon. Friend asks is that it should be obligatory on the Home Secretary to pay over this money to such persons as he thinks proper. It only goes into the Exchequer when the Home Secretary thinks it desirable that he should do so. We who take an interest in these miners' funds know what an enormous number of people they keep off the rates and maintain in comparative comfort; and I think the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, when he sees that these funds are doing so much good, will let this money go directly into them, especially when the money arises from fines in connection with accidents.

I said I had grave doubts as to whether this Amendment was admissible; but if it is admissible now it will be admissible on Report. I think, therefore, the hon. Gentleman would be well advised if he decided upon considering this matter and bringing it up on Report.

Will the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department say what he is prepared to do?

I am not in a position to say at present; but I will consider the matter.

If it were accepted it would be necessary to leave out the words—

"A Secretary of State may (if he thinks fit) direct such fine to be paid to or distributed among the persons injured and the relatives of any persons whose death may have been occasioned by an explosion, accident, or offence, or among some of them."