I observe with great satisfaction that the First Lord of the Treasury has, according to the Paper, somewhat modified his original proposal to take all the resolutions of which he gave notice yesterday. As far as I personally am concerned, I shall be as brief as possible in giving my reason for supporting the Amendment, because, although I protest against the arrangement of the First Lord of the Treasury for limiting the debate upon this matter, I am anxious that the Eight Hours Bill should be discussed and divided upon this, afternoon. It is rather hard upon those who consider that the question of the time allotted to Supply should be thoroughly discussed to find that if they so discuss it they will prevent the consideration of a. measure which may do something to lessen the loss of life in the mining operations of the country. The hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs proposes to extend the time by giving five instead of three addi- tional days if necessary. It is absolutely essential that at least this Amendment should be accepted, and I challenge any hon. Member to say honestly that there is anything unreasonable in the proposal. According to the resolution the discussion of Supply is to be limited to twenty days. Can it conscientiously be said that twenty days is sufficient for the discussion of all that is involved in the enormous expenditure of the Government? There are only three days in the whole year intended for the discussion of the total expenditure connected with every part of Ireland. It is a perfect absurdity to suppose that that is sufficient. With regard to the resolution generally, I do not say it is a bad thing in principle that Supply should be to some extent evenly distributed through the session; my objection is that the number of days given is not sufficient. Distribute Supply by all means, but do not make an arrangement by which at the end of the session some of the most important Votes are carried through without a single word of discussion. However, as I am anxious that a Bill of great importance to a large proportion of the working people of tins country should be discussed to-day, I will content myself by asking the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment.

I have always been in favour of this rule, and I think Supply is infinitely better treated under it than under; the old plan, but I rise for the purpose of pressing on the attention of the Leader of the House one fact, and it is because of that fact that I shall certainly support the Amendment. My right hon. friend must be aware that the conditions in Ireland are very different this session to what they have been at any previous time. A great system of local government has been brought into play, and as might be expected a good deal has happened between the Local Government Board and the local authorities in different parts of Ireland. A good deal of friction has been caused, and the result of the decision of the Court of Appeal the other day is a matter of the gravest importance both to the Local Government Board and to the country. I would point out that the mere fact that that great system of local government has been brought into play will necessitate discussion in this House, and the Estimates will be the only occasion upon which it can be discussed. If we are to be allowed only three days for Irish Supply, as a matter of fact nothing but local government and the administration of the land will be or can be discussed, and the—

I would point out to the hon. Member that there is a notice of Amendment on the Paper dealing especially with the number of days that should be allotted to Irish Supply. Perhaps his observations would come rather upon that.

I felt bound to speak upon this point, because if the resolution is carried as it stands it will be very difficult for English Members to consent to Ireland getting six days—if the period is not extended by this Amendment. I rose merely for the purpose of pointing out the difficulty which will arise in regard to Irish Supply unless the time is extended and greater facilities are given for discussions which are absolutely necessary.

I rise simply to say I shall support this Amendment as an Irish Member. Throughout the whole of the last Parliament I found that the most important questions affecting Ireland were guillotined, closured, or whatever you like to call it, under the operation of this rule. There is no doubt that in the present session the rule will press more inconveniently on Ireland than ever, because a great proportion of the allotted time must necessarily be taken up by the Army and Navy Estimates this year, as they will be much heavier than before, and besides which an entire day will be necessary to discuss the Irish Local Government Board. There is one question, for example, which will require ample discussion in reference to the conduct of the Local Government Board—namely, with regard to the medical officer of the North Dublin Union. Nor will Ireland be satisfied without the question of university education for Catholics in that county being adequately discussed. What are we taking up the public time with by debating? Mainly, whether or not two days should be curtailed from the long holiday of this House. If five days are inserted instead of three it merely means that the House may not be prorogued until two days later than it otherwise would be. Surely a question of that sort cannot be put in competition with the great interests of the Empire in general and of the small and insignificant portion of the Empire called Ireland in particular. Therefore I hope this Amendment will be pressed to a division, and that everyone really interested in seeing that the country is not unduly taxed, and that abuses do not exist in the numerous Departments connected with Irish administration, will support the hon. Member in the lobby.

was understood to say that he felt very strongly that with the rule as it now stood there was very great reason for the Amendment. Since the rule was passed five or six years ago the opportunities of private Members for criticising the Government had been very seriously curtailed, and on that ground, which he thought was a very strong one, he should support the Amendment. On Fridays, under the rule, the House did get very proper and satisfactory opportunities for criticising the Government, and as there were so many important matters to be discussed, the period might very well he extended for twenty-five days, especially as it would still be in the option of the Government whether or not they allotted the extra five days.

The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has thrown the weight of his authority, in the main, in favour of the rule as it stands at present, but he thinks there ought to be an addition to the number of days allotted to Supply, on the ground that there has been a greater invasion of the rights of private Members during the last five years than during previous sessions. I think the memory of the hon. Gentleman has misled him. No doubt it has been my unhappy lot to come down from time to time and ask the House to surrender, either for the work of Supply or for the work of Government legislation, some of the days commonly given to abstract resolutions, but I do not think that that duty has fallen upon me with greater weight than upon my predecessors. They have done it, no doubt, with great reluctance, as I do, but nevertheless they have done it quite as frequently. It is very easy for Gentlemen to say, "What harm can two days more do?" It is really a question of what proportion of the normal and reasonable session ought to be given to the work of criticism, and how much to the work of constructive legislation. I have endeavoured to make very hastily and roughly a calculation of the number of working days we have in the session, and the proportion which, under the existing system and under the rules which now stand, we give to the work of criticism. A session, roughly, is six months—say, 180 days. Subtract from that twenty-eight days for the two holidays; that leaves 152 days, or, roughly speaking, twenty-two weeks. I take a week as consisting of four and a half days of Parliamentary work. That gives 100 working days in the six months session. How, under the existing rules, do we allocate these 100 days? In the first place, we can put down eight days as the minimum amount during recent years for the Address to the Throne—we have spent rather more than eight days during the present session; there are at least ten non-counting days of Supply before Easter, and twenty-three days after Easter; there are two days before Easter on the Second and Third Readings of the Appropriation Bill, and there are two days in August on the corresponding stages of the second Appropriation Bill. Add all these together, and you will find that the number of days, quite exclusive of motions for the adjournment of the House and other incidental matters of that kind avowedly and openly given to criticism of and attacks upon the Government—criticism as distinguished from legislation—is forty-five out of a hundred. That leaves fifty-five days for private Members' time and Government time devoted to legislation. Can any human being say that that is an excessive amount? I am astonished at the way hon. Members blow hot and cold in this matter. If we propose to take Tuesdays for Supply before Easter they say, "How can you do such a thing as that, and deprive private Members of this or that privilege?" These days are given to Supply. Then when we come to the number of days to be given to Supply they say, "Oh, these are far too few; can we not increase the number?"—always of course out of the time available for Government legislation. This number of twenty-three days was not rashly started in the first instance, nor has it been rashly continued during the five years in which this resolution has been in force. If hon. Gentlemen will look back to the speech I made when originally proposing the rule, ^* they will find that I based the number of days not upon any arbitrary idea of my own as to the time that should be given for the discussion of Supply, but upon the amount that had actually been given in recent years. Why is this demand made? It is because under the rule now being attacked the days come at so convenient a time of the year that hon. Gentlemen wish the number increased. Under the old system—which is absolutely unknown to many Gentlemen here and is perhaps fading somewhat from the Parliamentary recollection of those who suffered under it—many of the days given to criticism were spent late in August in an empty and tired House, to the utmost inconvenience of the Members who had the courage to stay, and in the absence of a large number who had not the courage and endurance, but who, if they had stayed, would no doubt have added very valuable elements to the discussion.

The right hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that we spend now £100,000,000 more than we did.

I do not sec what that really has to do with it.

^*For discussion on Mr. Balfour's proposals of 1896, see The Parliamentary Debates, Vol. xxxvii., commencing at page 723.

Everybody admits that Committee of Supply does not exist now for the purpose of diminishing Government expenditure, nor have I ever heard a reduction moved except for the purpose of either attacking a Minister, criticising his policy, or urging the Government to further expenditure.

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I have myself moved half-a-dozen motions for the purpose of reducing the expenditure.

I do not doubt the hon. Member has moved reductions in the Constabulary Vote, and so on, and he may have put them on the ground of economy, but everybody knows that his reason is not that less public money should be spent in Ireland, but something very different, which it would not be in order now to go into. The amount of money now spent is not relevant to this discussion. The only thing that is relevant is the proportion of our total time which ought to be given to criticism, and which by being given to criticism is necessarily abstracted from other work. If the House seriously think that forty-five days is an insufficient proportion of a hundred days, by all means let them support the Amendment.

That is not forty-five days in Committee?

No, it is what I said it was—forty-five days out of a hundred given to criticism as distinguished from private Members' resolutions, private Members' legislation, and the general legislative work of the Government. I am rather exaggerating, because in the legislative work of the Government is included that which is commonly called legislation—namely, Budget work. If the House follow me in taking that broad view of the general working session, they will not think the number of days allotted under the rule too limited in quantity. Under these circumstances I feel bound, in the interests of the House, to oppose the Amendment. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have attacked this rule as though it was a new and untried proposal which had to go through the fire of criticism, as if it had never been employed by the House before. I venture to say that ever since the rule was first introduced it has been growing in favour. The more it has been studied the more it has made converts even among those who originally opposed it. Although I have been and still am most unwilling to put this rule outside our ordinary discussions by making it a Standing Order of the House, if every time it is brought forward as a Sessional Order we are to spend a great amount of time in reviewing the

My hon, friend the Member for East Mayo has asked me to move the Amendment which stands in his name. It is with very great regret that we are standing in the way of the discussion of the Miners Eight Hours Bill, which is a measure in which I take personally a great deal of interest. The blame, however, in this matter does not lie with the Irish Members, but with the Government, who have taken the most extra- ordinary course of springing this proposal upon the House. Like every other Irish Member, I feel very strongly in this matter. Year after year we have been coming to this House to ventilate various Irish grievances and to lay before this House and the country the feelings and wishes of our constituencies in regard to Irish administration, and we find, by the way in which the proceedings are conducted, it is impossible for us to discuss these questions properly. The hon. Member for South Tyrone has drawn attention to one matter of very great importance, which unquestionably ought to be largely discussed in the House during the present session, and that is the administration of the Irish Local Government Act. There are many other questions of Irish administration which are similarly circumstanced, and which for years past we have never been able to discuss at all. For these and other reasons I hope this Amendment will be carried, and I simply rise for the purpose of entering my protest against this proposal. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my hon. friend's name.

I beg leave to second the Amendment. I wish to point out that during the operation of the Local Government Act in Ireland the representatives of the people have been dealt with in the most autocratic manner by the Irish Local Government Board. In many cases in Ireland the local bodies have not been allowed to exercise the rights and privileges which they are entitled to exercise by the Act.

Order, order! The hon. Member will not be in order in discussing the conduct of the Local Government Board upon this Amendment.

Then I will formally second the Amendment.

I beg to enter my protest against the practice of the Government, for it is without parallel in the House of Commons to introduce an important Sessional Order at the tail end of a long sitting of the House. I have never known a Sessional Order or a complicated Standing Order dealing with the procedure of the House which was not put down at the beginning of the sitting under circumstances which would give hon. Members of the House a fair opportunity of discussing it. On the present occasion the House of Commons has been treated in the most contemptuous manner, for the First Lord of the Treasury has not only selected a time which renders it impossible to give it fair and reasonable consideration, but he introduced it sub silentio. Whatever his motive may have been, I notice that the right hon. Gentleman has abandoned the project of carrying this Order without an explanation, for he gave us to-day a long explanation, during which he was frequently interrupted by the Whip of his party.

He never said a word about it.

We have always taken a very considerable interest in the working of this rule, and I thought we were entitled to lay before the House the result of our observations. This Amendment proposes to safeguard the rights of Irish Members by securing that a minimum number of six days shall be given to Irish Supply. I am anxious, like other hon. Members who have already spoken on these benches, not to place any barrier in the way of the discussion of the Miners Bill, but I shall be exceedingly brief. I wish to enter my protest against the rather sharp practice of the First Lord of the Treasury in depriving us of our right to discuss his proposal fully and reasonably. Under the present rule, what is the position of Irish Supply? With the rule as it stands, the Minister can give exactly as much time to Irish Supply as he thinks fit. He may give four days, as he did when this rule was introduced, and he may reduce it to three days, as he did in subsequent years. He may reduce it to two days or to one day, or to no days at all, and we have absolutely no remedy. Is that a fair position in which to place any section of the Members of this House? This is not a question of Irish Members only, for the same discretion applies to every other subject in Supply, and this rule will allow the Minister to become an absolute despot. No Minister ought to have the power to do such a thing, and under this rule a Minister can absolutely abolish discussion upon any branch or section of Supply which he thinks is troublesome, or which he chooses to decide it is not in the public interest to discuss. We heard the other day in the House of Commons with some amazement a Secretary of State deliberately state to the House of Commons as a reason for depriving Members of this House of one of their most cherished privileges that foreign Ambassadors strongly approved of this action. Is there a Member in this House who does not know perfectly well that all foreign Ambassadors would strongly approve of the abolition of discussion on all foreign matters? Is there a single hon. Member who does not know that Irish officials would strongly approve of a similar course being taken? We were told by the present Secretary of State for War—and he used it as an argument in favour and in justification of the abolition of our right to ask supplementary questions—that foreign Ambassadors thought it a good innovation. We shall be having the Chief Secretary for Ireland standing up in this House and saying, "I have consulted all the Irish officials, and they agree with me that the reduction of the number of days for discussing Irish Supply has very much facilitated the working of the machinery for governing Ireland." Why, the only thorn in the bed of roses upon which Irish officials lie is that they suffer from criticism in this House, and the less criticism there is here the more the Dublin officials are pleased. What I contend is, that no matter how good the intentions of the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chief Secretary for Ireland may be, once you place in the power of Ministers the right to curtail and finally do away with the discussion of Irish Estimates, the pressure from behind of the permanent officials in Dublin will drive the Ministers inch by inch until we shall probably be reduced to one day only upon which to discuss the whole of the Irish Estimates. In the discussion which has already taken place we have had various proposals put forward. Several hon. Members have said that this rule gives too much power to the Executive Government, and they propose that in each session so many days should be allotted to each branch of Supply. I remember the First Lord of the Treasury himself in a previous session said he would have no objection to this course being taken. If you ask the House to measure out the time of the session to each Department of Supply without any elasticity, I am afraid the discussion of certain matters will suffer in consequence. What happened in the last session? Owing to the hard and fast rule which is in operation, when we got nearly to the end of the session it was found impossible for the Government themselves to give a day to the discussion of the Colonial Office Vote, and we spent a considerable amount of time discussing by what trick or dodge such a discussion could be allowed. The Government executed a flank movement with this rule, and they took a Wednesday. They set down some bogus Bill in front of Supply, and it was only by that device that we were able to get a discussion upon the Colonial Office at all.

Order, order! The hon. Member is discussing the general working of the rule. I would remind him that the question before the House is that not less than six nights shall be allocated for the discussion of Irish Estimates.

I was trying to defend my position, inasmuch as this Amendment proposes to do what I opposed as a general principle on the main question, namely, to measure out a certain number of days to Supply, which I believe to be a bad thing. It was only for the purpose of illustrating that point that I alluded to the general working of the rule. I have only this to say in conclusion, for I really desire to be as brief as I possibly can—the First Lord of the Treasury to-day has laid down a principle which is enough to make the old economists of this House turn in their graves, for he has stated that for the future the Committee of Supply of this House has nothing to do with checking the expenditure of Ministers.

The hon. Member is mistaken. What I said wag; that that is the practice of Parliament.

The practice of Parliament?

Yes, the accepted practice of Parliament.

If it is the accepted practice of Parliament, all I have to say is that it is one which may lead to the most awful jobbery and waste of public funds, because once you proclaim that no criticism is to take place in Committee of Supply with regard to any expenditure or waste of money, then you open the flood-gates to every form of jobbery, and a more ruinous rule it would be impossible to lay down. The right hon. Gentleman stated that no hon. Members in recent years ever moved a reduction of the Estimates with the honest desire of putting a stop to extravagance of any kind. That is not true so far as my own experience goes. I believe that in recent years, unhappily for the House of Commons, this practice of moving reductions has fallen off, with the result that the whole country is now contemplating with alarm and consternation the frightful swelling of the taxation of the country. Fortunately for the taxpayers of this country, this practice has not entirely passed away, for if it was once admitted that this practice was a thing of the past, and the Committee of Supply was never to be used again to check public expenditure, then I say the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be a very unhappy man, and the tax payers of this country would have to prepare for an absolutely intolerable burden of taxation. We spend most of the time in Committee of Supply in criticising the conduct of Irish Ministers, and we have endeavoured to use our opportunities in Committee of Supply for criticising and condemning the scandalous waste of public money in Ireland, and we have tried to reduce some of the outrageous Irish Estimates. We desire to get fair treatment as regards the financial relations of the two countries, but we do not desire to see money spent in Ireland in a wasteful fashion. I desire to protest on behalf of the Irish Members—and I think there are many Radicals who would like to join in that protest—against this novel doctrine, which I have never heard before announced from the Ministerial Front Bench.

It seems quite impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to pacify hon. Members opposite. I am sorry I shall not be able to vote for this Amendment; I intend to 'vote against it. I will, however, say that, at all events, Members sitting on the Ministerial side of the House have a grievance with regard to an appointment which took place last year in connection with the Irish Agricultural Department, which is deeply resented by Members on the Ministerial benches; yet that matter could only be discussed on a Vote which was one of the Votes closured. That may be an argument that more time ought to be given for Supply. I think the first business of the House ought to be Supply, and we ought to spend more time on it. The First Lord of the Treasury seems to think that we ought to give nearly the whole of our time to legislation, especially Irish land legislation, which is as bad as it can be. The Order has one fatal defect, and that is the large number of divisions which take place on the last night of Supply. That alone is sufficient for me to take every opportunity of recording my vote against the rule. I confess that in the past I have voted both for the rule and against it. But after what took place last session, and after studying the working of the rule, I feel convinced that hon. Members do not get such a full opportunity of discussing Supply as they did at the time when I first entered the House in 1886. If nothing else can be said against the rule, the fact that we have to have the extraordinary proceeding of walking through the lobbies at the end of the session is sufficient justification for ending the rule. I do not think, however, that the Amendment is quite fair to England, and I must vote against it.

I desire to remind the House for a moment I or two what the area is which we are expected to travel over in the six days we are asking for. Take, for instance, the Irish Constabulary Vote, which is a very large sum. Then there is the law expenses. Now I think that either of these two Votes might reasonably be given a full day of the time of the House for their discussion. Then there is the Vote which has been mentioned by my hon. friend in regard to the new Agricultural Department. In regard to this there is a widespread idea that the money has not been properly spent, and, as this is a new and important matter for Irish Members, I think it might have had devoted to it at least one day of the time of the House. With regard to education, I think the Irish Members ought at least to have a full day to discuss the different branches of education in Ireland. In the new programme of national education there is a very wide subject for discussion, in which vast changes have been introduced, and it is only reasonable that Irish Members should expect to get suitable opportunities for discussing this immense question. In regard to university education, upon which we have the sympathy of many hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, I do not think it is unreasonable that we should ask for ample time to discuss this subject in view of the strong view held in Ireland as to its great importance. Then there is the question of the Congested Districts, which the Chief Secretary for Ireland himself has admitted to be a pressing subject. We have had no promise in the King's Speech in reference to this. There is also the conduct of the Local Government Board in regard to their dealings with Irish local bodies, the question of the salaries of the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, all of which are very important subjects. If you are proposing to devote the bulk of the time of this session to Army and Navy reform and to Supplementary Votes for the war, how can you expect Irish Members to be satisfied with six days only for the discussion of all those important subjects to which I have alluded? I think we ought to have at least sixteen days, and I enter my protest against the carrying of this resolution. I heartily support the Amendment of my hon. friend.

May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it is in order to move an Amendment to an Amendment?

Yes; that would be quite in order.

I can readily understand why the First Lord of the Treasury, with only twenty-three days allotted to Supply, is unable to give six of those days to Ireland; but I would suggest to my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury that a compromise might be made between six days and three. I appeal to the Government to look the facts fairly in the face. I know that many hon. Gentlemen would be very glad to get rid of Irish Supply and Irish affairs altogether, but I do ask the House to bear in mind that the Government undertake to govern Ireland, and that they must, having undertaken that responsibility, face what it involves. It is quite impossible that this question can be brushed aside as a matter of no importance. This year has presented in Ireland elements for discussion in Supply such as no previous year has ever presented. The Local Government Board Vote alone must take a day. It is quite impossible to discuss that question, with all the friction which has arisen, and which could not well have been avoided. All that must come up and be faced. Again, there is the administration of the Land Act. Nothing could well be worse; and for the Government to say that that cannot be discussed in the House of Commons is to abrogate their functions wholly and entirely. Then the Government have brought a new system of national education into operation, and also a new system of intermediate education into operation, and there are at least a dozen things to be discussed this year in a form in which we have never discussed them before. How can we go back to our constituents at the end of the session—those of us who do go at all—and say that when we asked for an additional day or days to discuss those subjects we were not given this opportunity, and were all closured in the House? I appeal to the Government to come to some reasonable arrangement, and give not six days—we cannot expect six days out of twenty-three—but to give us some reasonable, workable arrangement that will enable us to go back to Ireland and say to the people, "We at all events have been able to perform our duty in this Unionist House of Commons."

I beg leave to move an Amendment to the hon. Member's Amendment on the Paper, which he may possibly see his way to accept, and if he does accept it he may get some support on this side of the House—at all events he will get my support. My proposal is that not less than five nights shall be allocated to Irish Estimates, and not less than three nights to Foreign Office Estimates.

The hon. Member cannot add the last words relating to the Foreign Office, for his Amendment must be relevant to the Amendment before the House.

But the Amendment comes at the end of the new rules.

An Amendment to an Amendment must be relevant to the Amendment itself. I do not say that the latter part cannot be moved afterwards.

Then I will move the second part of my Amendment afterwards.

It has been stated that the Government have taken a course which has prevented this rule being discussed fully and reasonably. I do not know whether the House considers that it has been reasonably discussed, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman opposite has discussed it fully. He made very long speech on it to-day. He has risen on this occasion to discuss the wrongs of Ireland, and he says, among other things, that every Irish official would, of course, like to see the discussion on Irish Supply limited or even abolished, and that the result of that would be the smooth working of government in Ireland. But that is not my experience. I think, from the point of view of the Irish Chief Secretary, and those whom he has got to defend, discussions in this House are a most valuable antidote to the mendacious calumnies which are so constantly spread in Ireland against the Irish officials, and certainly it is not on their behalf that I wish to see the discussion of Irish Estimates curtailed. Let us consider this argument more closely. The hon. Member says it rests with the First Lord of the Treasury not only to determine what Department of Supply shall be discussed, but also to determine the amount of time that shall be allocated to it, and he says that it rests with the First Lord of the Treasury to decide this, and that it is also within our power to squeeze out any particular subject of Supply and prevent it being discussed in this House. That was, shortly, the argument of the hon. Member, although he was good enough to say that the present occupants of the Front Bench might not be prepared to take so violent a course. I desire to have the fullest discussion of Irish or any other affairs, and I believe the danger alluded to is perfectly illusory. During the five years in which this rule has been in operation I have done my best to consult the wishes of the House as to the allocation of the twenty-three days. Any lead given by the right hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues on the Front Opposition Bench is immediately followed by the Government, and any expression of opinion from any large section of the House has always received the fullest consideration from the Government. If the House thinks that any danger exists it could be avoided by having a Committee, not to settle at the beginning of the session how the twenty-three days should be allocated, but a Committee which week by week would exercise discretion in this matter. That Committee, as I myself once suggested, might have upon it, contrary to the ordinary practice of this House, a majority of the Opposition, so that they might be sure of obtaining the opportunity they desired of criticising the Government. I myself suggested that plan—not in any formal shape—and it is a plan which would relieve me of a most onerous and laborious task, which brings me many kicks and no halfpence. I do not think, however, that the proposal has ever met with any favour in any part of the House, and I therefore do not think it desirable to press it further. The hon. Gentleman complained to-day that during the last two or three sessions only three days have been occupied with Irish Supply. It has always been left to the Irish Members themselves to determine the order of Irish Supply to be followed. It is perfectly true that the time at their disposal is not unlimited, but so far as the allocation of the time is concerned they have absolute discretion. I hope they will not think I am saying anything in the least offensive when I say, judging the matter with all the impartiality I can command, that if they were really to economise that time, compress their remarks, and select their ablest representatives to put their views forward, they could in these three days have perfectly adequate discussion year after year. In addition they have opportunities which they feel compelled to take in moving the adjournment of the House, and also on the debates in reply to the King's Speech—opportunities which they have always availed themselves of, and which they have a perfect right to avail themselves of. I myself think that the three days is an adequate amount, but four days have at times been given to Irish Supply, and nothing makes it impossible that four days should in the future, if necessary, be also given to the same subject. We are not now discussing the adequacy of the twenty-three days. We are discussing the propriety of fixing the time as between different subjects by the terms of our Sessional Order. I do not agree with my hon. friend below the gangway in the Amendment he foreshadowed, but I agree with him that if we fix the time to be given to Irish Supply we must also fix the time to be given to other classes of Supply—the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, and the other great Departments of the State. In that case, as my hon. friend says, the life blood of this Order would be destroyed. Under these circumstances I would suggest to the House that we should come to a decision on the matter and allow hon. Members deeply interested in another question to proceed with its consideration.

I wish to move an Amendment to the Amendment. It is to substitute "five" for "six." There is a feeling that six nights is too much, and that five nights would better meet the views of hon. Members.

seconded the Amendment.

I have nothing to say in disagreement with this suggestion.

I hope my right hon. friend will have regard to the weighty argument he has just addressed—

My hon. friend misunderstands me. I have only accepted "five" in order to vote against it.

I must confess I have been converted by the argument of my right hon. friend the Leader of the House, in which he said it would not do to allocate days to one portion of the Estimates and not to all. Although I am greatly in favour of the appointment of some Committee to meet occasionally to consider the allocation of the Estimates, I do not propose to move the Amendment I mentioned a few minutes ago. I am quite aware the House is anxious to get to the discussion of another subject, and I do not propose to detain it, but I sincerely hope that the Government will allocate more time to the Foreign Office Estimates this session than they did in recent sessions. I do not agree with my right hon. friend the Leader of the House that full time has always been given to the Foreign Office Estimates. I think very important questions such as the question of China have been put on one side, if not burked. They demand greater attention, and I hope my appeal will not fall on deaf ears.

Although the House is already aware, from the views which have been expressed by hon. Members on these benches, that we have not had sufficient notice or opportunity for the discussion of this motion, we are exceedingly anxious not to stand in the way of the discussion of the Bill which is coming on, and we are therefore not disposed to continue the discussion. We feel that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has, to some extent, succeeded in the object he had in view yesterday, which was to bring pressure to bear on us to curtail the discussion on this motion for fear it might be said we were standing in the way of the Mines Bill. Notwithstanding that, I hope my hon. friends will now allow a division to be taken on the main question.

I must inform the hon. Gentleman that there is no sort of ground for his allegation, and that the motive he imputes to me has no foundation.

I will not attempt to argue the question, and, of course, if he says he had no such motive I accept, as I am bound to accept, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. But the evidence on which I made my accusation is before the House, and it can judge for itself. I hope my hon. friends will now allow a division to be taken on the main question, and that an opportunity—although, no doubt, not the full opportunity they ought to have had—will be given to hon. Members to. bring under the consideration of the House an important question affecting many hundreds of thousands of the working classes of this country.

I desire at the outset to say that if, by the chances of the procedure of this House, an opportunity is now afforded us of discussing this Bill, it is largely due to the kindness of Members on both sides who supported the protest I made yesterday, and to the opposition which has kept a debate that might very properly have occupied the whole of this afternoon within very narrow limits indeed. I have to acknowledge also the concession made by the First Lord of the Treasury in taking from the Paper today two of the three Sessional Orders which it was intended to submit for the acceptance of the House. I am, therefore, in the happy position of being able to give thanks all round. The Bill, of which I have the honour of moving the Second Reading, proposes to enact that a person shall not in any one day of twenty-four hours be employed underground in any mine for a period exceeding eight hours from the time of leaving the surface until the ascent hereto, except in the case of breakage of machinery or explosion from fire-damp or any accident involving the stoppage of the working of the mine. The proposal has the disadvantage of being a more than twice told tale. ^* It is not a new one to this Chamber, even if it be to the present House of Commons, and if there is difficulty in finding new arguments in favour of it, it is, happily, equally difficult to find new pretexts against it. Nevertheless I recognise that at the present time I have to deal with a certain attitude of the public mind as regards the price of coal—the high price which I has ruled in the coal market for the past twelve months—and that attitude renders my task this afternoon a little more difficult than it would otherwise have been. One hon. Member has told me that the view of his constituents is, that so long-as the price of coal is kept up at its present level it is absurd for miners to desire to have their hours of labour reduced. I have observed, too. in the press a suggestion that if I were to include in the Bill a clause preventing miners taking too long holidays, then, my pro-

^* For the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill in the year 1900, see The Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, Vol. Ixxix., page 1303. The footnote references there given furnish the complete Parliamentary history of the movement.

posal would be received with more sympathy than it is likely to meet with now. I say, however, without fear of contradiction, that the high price of coal and the peculiar conditions of the coal market during the past twelve or eighteen months have not been in any respect whatever due to the hours of labour or the wages earned by the miners, and therefore I think this debate can well proceed without prejudice from that point of view. Coal has been rendered somewhat scarce and very dear by a series of causes entirely outside the condition of things which would be set up by the operation of this Bill. In the first place there was a boom in the iron trade in this country, and coincident with it there was a partial failure of the coal supply abroad together with a greater demand for coal for export. There was also a panic among the public. The demand for coal for home use was concentrated within a few weeks, and consumers laid in large stocks in a hurry, with the result that prices went up rapidly. Indeed, I have not the slightest doubt that many Members of this House not only filled their coal-cellars to overflowing, but also utilised part of the accommodation afforded by their wine-cellars, in order to secure a sufficient store of black diamonds. The panic was not confined to the well-to-do. In the East End of London I have been told there were cases in which the very poor, who were not the fortunate possessors of coal-cellars, actually stocked the commodity under their beds, because they feared that in the winter time prices would reach such a pitch that they would be unable to buy. Mine-owners and coal merchants were naturally not slow to take advantage of this state of things, and they realised enormous profits. But I want to make it clear at the outset that this panic and this congestion of the trade were not caused in any way by a restriction of the hours of labour of miners or by any increase of their wages. The men were, in fact, working practically full time in that period. They were working eleven days in the fortnight, and so far from their wages having caused the increase in the price of coal, I think I am well within the mark when I say that for every shilling added to the celling price of coal per ton the miner has not received more than one farthing, If it is the desire of the public to bring the price of coal within reasonable limits they should do so not by refusing to pass this Bill, but by considering whether coal should not be treated in the same way as gas and water, and a limit put by law upon the profits earned in its production. It has been suggested that if this Bill becomes law the output of coal would be restricted, and that that would send up the price. But I have already pointed out that prices have gone up without the operation of an Eight Hours Bill, and I am now going to argue that the adoption of this measure would not cause any great increase in the cost of obtaining coal, and would not, for a long period at any rate, produce any restriction of the output. The temporary inflation of prices to which I have referred is already passing away, and I am told that, within the past fortnight, contracts for steam coal have been entered into at nine shillings per ton. The miners' wages remain practically steady under the agreement maintained by the beneficient operation of the Conciliation Board, the principle underlying that agreement being that there shall be a living wage with an irreducible minimum, that there shall be no unreasonable demand for a rise of wages above that minimum, and that there shall also be no unreasonable demand on the part of the employers to reduce them. I think it is for the general public to recognise that during the recent critical period not only have employers shown themselves reasonable in the matter of wages, but that the men, acting under the guidance of respectable and responsible leaders, have made no attempt to get an increase of wages contrary to the spirit of the agreement. I am told by my hon. friend the Member for Mansfield that it is agreed by mine-owners and mining agents and engineers that if the Eight Hours Bill is applied to the coal trade it will not add very much to the normal price of coal, and one estimate is that the increased charge for all purposes will not exceed sixpence per ton.

It would not amount to anything like that.

That, I believe, is the case, but for the purpose of argument I have adopted an extreme limit, and I do ask the House to bear in mind how small will be the economic disturbance caused by the change embodied in this Bill. Then there is the question of the restriction of the output. There have been experiments—certainly not very many—in the direction of working mines on the eight hours a day principle, and they enable us to draw a conclusion as to the result. The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division tells me that he has for a considerable period experimented in his own coal mines in this direction, and he assures me that, although there may have been some slight reduction in the output, he considers that on the whole the limitation to eight hours has worked advantageously, and that he has gained by the adoption of the eight-hour day. I should like the House to consider some further arguments on this point. The statement is that if you reduce the hours of labour you necessarily reduce the output. On the face of it that would seem to be a logical result, but I wish to point out that the restriction would be merely temporary, and by the play of economic forces and by intenser effort on the part of the miners the output would, after a short period, be brought back to what it was before the reduced hours came into force. Simultaneously there would be a reduction in the price. There would be more pits opened for working, and pits now abandoned when partially exhausted would in the future be completely exhausted, in order to bring more coal on the market, so that within a short period the normal condition of things existing before the reduction of the hours of labour would be regained. Therefore I am entitled to argue, with some show of reason, that the restriction of the individual output and the general output would be only temporary, that output would very quickly get back to equilibrium, and to the normal condition of the trade, with this great advantage, that you would have reduced the hours of labour of a great class in the community from ten to eight, and that you would have produced a great humanitarian reform which would give satisfaction to myriads of highly respectable, industrious, hard working artisans in this country. You would also take a long step along the road, on which of late steps have been rather infrequent, of factory and mining legislation generally, and set up another milestone on the path of progress towards, comfort and human conditions surrounding the work of all the people in this country. You would do this also at the cost of a temporary disturbance, which, financially, could not measure more than 6d. per ton, and perhaps not more than. 1d. per ton—a disturbance which has existed again and again for the profits of mine owners and coal agents during the period to which I have referred. As to output, there is no fear of the supply of coal not being adequate to meet the-demand for manufacturing and household purposes, for I have endeavoured to show that a disturbance of general output would be compensated for by the greater number of pits and workings-coming into play. It will not be contended, I suppose, that miners working under ten hours-a day, at this date, do not get practically as much coal out of the mines as they did a hundred years ago, when they worked fifteen or sixteen hours a day. The intensity of the labour accounts for-some of it, but there are other reasons—improved mechanical appliances, better winding, closer and more enlightened organisation, and railways; and it is from these means that equilibrium would be reached after a brief disturbance. This House, apart from the difficulties of rules of procedure, does consist of men who are earnestly desirous of taking every opportunity they can of producing for the labouring population of the country improvements and reforms in every possible way in the conditions of labour. Who are the men who make this request from the House? If one studies the condition of the country a little more than a century ago he will discover that the miners of that day were a discredited class, ignorant, ill-mannered, and rather brutal. These were the days before Factory Acts, Mining Regulation Acts, improved education, and higher wages, which purchase more-in the market than of old time. But different conditions have begun to exist in the class whose claims I am advocating this afternoon. I speak from. eight years personal knowledge of miners in the Nottingham district, and I venture to say that, all class prejudices and misunderstandings apart, the miners of to-day are as respectable and respect-worthy a class as you will find in the whole community. The miner is a taciturn man, who does not wear his heart upon his sleeve. He conceals his thoughts and emotions; but when you get below the surface you find a hard-headed, shrewd, frugal, industrious, respectable man, who deserves the consideration of this House. He is not a casual day-labourer, but a skilled artisan, who must serve, after his boyhood, a two years apprenticeship; and when men of that stamp come before this House to the number of 500,000, and express a wish for the passing of this Bill, I submit that the House will do well to give that wish every consideration. Think what work they have to perform ! Their labour is in the bowels of the earth. They know the upward rush of the earth, as they descend into the pit. They know the damp and the wet, the extremes of temperature, the risks of an inrush of water, the dangers of fire-damp and of falling rock. These are not the conditions in which we would like to labour; but they are conditions which bring about a great number of accidents every year. It has been estimated that 100,000 casualties occur every year underground in coal mines. The greater part of these are slight; but 850 men are killed and 3,650 are seriously injured. I am told that the percentage of killed I to wounded in a battle is ten, but it is much higher in coal mining. If the membership of this House was so dangerous an occupation that every fifteen months a Member was killed by accident, that forty-two were seriously and ninety slightly injured every twelve months by the fall of Blue-books or the explosion of oratorical gas, we should rapidly adopt for ourselves an eight-hours day. Boys under sixteen and over thirteen years of age can be compelled by law to work in the mines fifty-four hours per week. Of 700,000 persons employed in coal mines there are 45,000 under sixteen years of age; and my Bill applies to them as well as to the adults. When you consider the death-roll, the mutilations, and the maiming of the persons employed in mines, the House will not wonder that the miners, through their great organisations, come to this House and ask for the passing of this Bill. I submit, in spite of the contradictions made before, and which will probably be made again, that something like five-sixths of the miners outside Northumberland and Durham ask for this Bill, and that a large proportion of the miners inside Northumberland and Durham would see the passing of this Bill with pleasure. I acknowledge with sorrow that a discordant note comes from Northumberland and Durham, and that that is the weak point in the prospects of this Bill passing. The hon. Member for Morpeth last year stated to the House that comparatively few of the men in Durham, and also I think in Northumberland, worked more than eight hours per day, that some of the boys only worked eight hours per day, and that the coal-hewers and other classes of adult labour worked less than eight hours per day. If that be so, these miners have secured what I propose by this Bill to apply to all the boys and adults throughout the country. I hope the House will not be led away by the plausible statement that the men are not united on this point into condemning the whole Bill. An hon. Member opposite stated on the last occasion that on a poll ninety per cent, of the miners voted in favour of the Bill. A poll was taken of the Durham miners, when 28,000 voted against eight hours, but 12,000 voted in favour, and 20,000 did not vote at all. Therefore I think I have some reason and justice for submitting to the House that there is not inside the area of Northumberland and Durham an unanimous opposition to the Bill. A cry has come year after year from the miners throughout the country for the passing of this Bill. It began in 1886, and attained its first expression in this House in 1892, when the Second Reading was lost by 112 votes. In 1893 the Second Reading was carried by seventy-eight votes, and in 1894 by eighty-seven votes. It came before the House again in 1897, when the Second Reading was lost by forty-one votes, and last year by twenty-four votes only. I hope that in this first session of a new Parliament the Second Reading will be carried by a number which will show that whatever the last Parliament may have said on the point, we are determined to do what we can to help forward the humanitarian movement which I advocate. Sometimes in this House we hear Black Rod knocking at the door, and the summons, which is that of the Crown, or of the deputies of the Crown, is listened to by us respectfully. These miners are knocking at the door of the House this afternoon. It is not a summons of the Crown or of the deputies of the Crown, but a summons of men banded together, knowing what they want—of men upon whose labour the very foundations of the prosperity of this country are built, and upon whose labour depends our comfort and our trade. We listen with respect to the summons of the man with the Black Rod; I ask the House to listen with respect to the knocking of men with black faces. What shall we answer? Shall we tell them that they are strong enough to obtain their desire without the help of the Legislature, by means of strikes or agreements? That is the argument which is put forward, as a rule, on occasions like these. But is that an argument that ought to be put forward from a temple of legislation, from this House of Law, where all laws are made? Agreements are but temporary things. There have been agreements on this point, but they have broken down again and again. In one case in Wales the men were locked out nine weeks for demanding the fulfilment of an agreement for an eight-hours day. The trade unions of the country are turning more and more against strikes, and demand the regulation of these things, wherever possible, by law. I ask the House to intervene, and to remember that in regard to almost every other point but this the working of coal pits is already regulated in the closest and most minute manner by law. I ask the House to apply law to the question of the maximum hours to be spent in labour in the coal mines. There are some Members in this House, coal-owners, who are opposed to the proposal, but there are others who are equally in favour of it. Other Members there are who have been miners, who support it, and others who oppose it. I appeal to the impartial sense of the House to settle the dispute. We are told that accidents will increase, and that mining is an exceptionally healthy occupation; but all that is special pleading. I beg the House to forget the weakness of the advocate in the strength of his cause, and to carry the Second Reading of this Bill which I now move.

I congratulate the hon. Member on the courage which, in introducing this Bill, he has shown in facing what appears to me to be an impossible position. He has admitted, with great candour, that the effect of the Bill would be to reduce the hours of labour by two hours a day. At present the miner works only six and a half to seven and a half hours a day. That is to say, if you reduce the hours of labour by two, you reduce the time of work by something like 30 per cent. The statement that that will not reduce output seems to me to require no answer whatever. The hon. Member very courageously grappled with the point by suggesting that a man could do really as much work in eight hours as in ten. But at present miners are not working eight hours, but only six and a half or seven and a half, and to argue that to reduce these by two would not reduce the output is, I think, a monstrous proposition. The hon. Member said it would reduce the cost of getting the coal by, at most, 6d. per ton. Now, I have some knowledge of I the cost of getting coal—

I said the selling price of coal, not the getting it.

I think the hon. Member is very much further astray in making that statement. He may make some calculation as to what is the cost of getting coal, but to calculate what would be added to the selling price is beyond the hon. Member's ingenuity. Let me deal with the question of cost. The best opinion I have been able to form or to obtain is that the addition to the cost would be at the very least 2s., and in many cases as much as 3 s. per ton. But the effect of diminishing the output would add enormously more than that to the selling price. The hon. Member attributed the late advances in the price of coal to the fact that consumers had become alarmed and had filled their coal cellars; it is obvious that reducing the output percent, would add much more to the price than this. The output of coal would be reduced by from 20 to 40 million tons a year, and the effect of that would be not only to enable, but to compel coal-owners to double or treble the price of coal. [Laughter from the Opposition benches.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I assure them I am perfectly serious in the statement I am now making, and I have been engaged in the coal trade from my youth upwards. I must say I was surprised that this Bill should be brought forward this session, for we have just had an object lesson as to the effect of the high price of coal. But if this Bill passed, what we have seen would be but a drop in the ocean as compared with what the effect would then be. There is not a Member in the House who has not felt in some form or another in his pocket the effect of the recent additional price of coal. Every man who holds shares in railway or gas companies has had his dividends diminished, and if he employs labour he will find that his poor workmen have had to pay 2s. or 3s. per week more for their coals. The British Government are buying bridges from America for Uganda, Egypt, South Africa, and Burma. We are buying American rails, and even coal is being imported into this country from Australia and America. Take one trade, with which I am best acquainted, the iron trade. The imports of pig iron in January, 1901, were 85,000 tons compared with 40,000 tons in the same month of 1900. The increase of imports of puddled iron is no less than 1,200 per cent., and of steel unwrought nearly 400 per cent. What is more serious is that while our imports have been increasing our exports have been diminishing. In January, 1901. the exports of pig iron were 177,000 tons compared with 528,000 tons in January, 1900, a reduction of no less than 66 per cent.; while the exports of steel unwrought were reduced 39 per cent. We have also seventy-four furnaces fewer at work, or a reduction of 20 per cent. I claim that the main cause—I would be scarcely exaggerating if I said the one cause—of all this has been the price of coal. Look, again, at how soon the price of coal begins to re-act on the workmen themselves. Only forty-six per cent. of the miners worked in the month of January this year for twenty days; whereas last year 68 per cent, worked twenty days. So that it is evident if this proposal of working two hours a day less were accepted and acted upon, retribution would follow on the workmen with very quick steps. But look at the effect on the general community ! Coal is as much a necessary of life in winter as food; if women and poor children do not get warm in their houses they die as readily as if they were cut short of food. Intolerable suffering has been caused by the recent high price of coal, and many lives have been lost. Is the miner so oppressed, is he in such a bad position that the whole community must suffer, that all the manufacturing interests of the country are to be sacrificed or destroyed in order that people may be made to pay double or triple for a first necessary of life? The miner is so protected by the splendid organisation of his trade that on the very same day in which the newspapers announced a reduction in the price of coal of 3s. per ton, there was likewise announced an addition of 5 per cent, to the miners' wages. What is the position of the coal hewers at the present time? Suppose they are working by the day—I speak of my own district—they earn 5s. 8d., to which must be added 4d. for the coal supplied free, or 6s. a day in all. But if they work by piecework they earn from 6s. to 10s. a day.

They do not earn that wage.

They earn on piecework from 6s. to 10s. a day of six and a half hours in the Warwick- shire district. I can only give what happens in my own colliery with my own workmen, and I challenge any hon. Member to deny the truth and accuracy of the statement I have made.

How many hours winding?

Nine.

Was it in the month of January?

The figures I have quoted have all been for the month of January. I have had a careful examination made of my accounts, and I find that on an average the individual miner works only four and a half days a week—although some work five and a half or six days. That is to say, the average miner works twenty-nine and a quarter hours per week. Is that so big a hardship that the Legislature should interfere and compel those miners to work fewer hours, who are willing to work more? The hon. Member who moved this Bill said that, owing to improved mechanical appliances and the greater skill and industry of the British miner, there had been a larger production of coal of late years than had ever been made before. I can give the hon. Member some figures on the point. In Great Britain in 1883 the average production per miner was 347 tons; in 1890 it dropped to 308 tons, and in 1897 it was still further reduced to 297 tons. That is to say, there had been a reduction in the average production per miner of about 20 per cent., instead of an increase, with improved mechanical appliances. That is not the worst of the case. If all the miners throughout the world were in the same condition, we might be able to hold our own. But while we are diminishing the output, miners elsewhere are increasing it. In the United States the production per miner was 443 tons in 1890 and 450 tons in 1897; that is to say, the American miner gets 50 per cent, more coal than the British miner.

What part of the United States?

I am taking the United States as a whole.

They use machines.

I beg the hon. Member's pardon; I will deal with that point presently. I say that the production of the United States miner is no less than 50 per cent, more than that of the miner in the United Kingdom. That is not because the miner there is more skilful than the miner here, but because he works more; instead of working six and a half hours, he works ten hours. The consequence is that in the United States coal is less than half the price that it is in this country. I must admit that there is a natural sympathy with a man who works underground—a sympathy which I fully share. He is exposed to very difficult conditions, and the labour which he has to undergo is very arduous. But I was so struck with the smaller cost of American coal that I sent out to America to inquire what was the reason for the difference, and I was told that the principal reason was that the American miner used mechanical appliances for coal-getting. I accordingly sent for these machines and introduced them into my pits; but I am sorry to say they were a complete failure. Every other day they would keep breaking down; something happened and they would not work. But I put to each machine an under-manager, and while the under-manager was with the machine, watching it, it was a complete and perfect success, and the output where the machine worked was doubled, and the men earned more money and had less hard work. I am sorry to say, however, that the moment the supervision of the under-manager was withdrawn the machines broke down again; and as I could not keep under-managers for all the machines, I was obliged to part with them. Now, it was said that a very large proportion of the miners—90 per cent., I think—are in favour of the Bill; but the hon. Member who quoted the figures did not explain how the percentage was arrived at. Meetings are called at the pit-head to discuss the question, and I am told that those who are in favour of the eight-hour day attend the meeting and vote for it, and that those who are not in favour of it keep away. It is a fact that in my own district not more than 10 per cent. of the miners attended these meetings, and of course it is very easy to arrive at unanimity when that is the case. Well, we must come to the conclusion, beyond any possibility of doubt, that the effect of this Bill would enormously reduce the output of coal. Some authorities put it at as much as forty million tons; but supposing it were only twenty or thirty million tons per annum, the effect would be to run up the price to famine rate. First of all there would be a great rise in the price of coal, and the masters would gain much more than the miners. But when the manufactures of this country had been destroyed by the effect of high prices of coal, the whole thing would come tumbling down and we should have ruin all round. The hon. Gentleman spoke very feelingly about the dangers to which miners are exposed, and this is the very greatest and the strongest objection I have to this Bill—it would lead to an increase of accidents. We all know that the miner's life is placed in a very precarious position unless the props, etc., are carefully watched. But if he is working at high pressure, if he has got to do in five and a half hours what he ought to take six and a half hours to complete, then the proportion of accidents would be enormously increased. I have endeavoured to condense my observations on this Bill as much as possible, although there is a great deal more to be said about it. I think, as this is a new Parliament, there ought to be a very full discussion upon it, and I trust that there will be no attempt to burke that full discussion. The Bill introduces a new principle, that of regulating the hours of labour of adult miners. The hon. Gentleman who proposed the Bill said that everything in a pit was regulated. Yes, there are a great many regulations, but all these are framed with the idea of preserving life and limb, not of limiting the adult labour of men who are in the full possession of their faculties. I have never heard of anyone being compelled to work in a pit, unless it might be a boy who was constrained to do so by his father. The effect of this Bill would be to prevent an industrious man, anxious to better his position in life, from deriving the full benefit of the fruits of his industry; and I venture to say that some of the most respected coalmasters, who were originally working miners themselves, would not have attained their present position if this Bill had been law. The effect of the Bill would be to reduce all to a dead level, and to prevent any man working more than six hours a day. Moreover, it is a Bill which would upset all the relations between the employers and employed. I believe it would be disastrous, first of all to the manufacturers of this country, second to the workmen, and last of all to the employers. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.

I regret that, as this is a new Parliament, the time at our disposal is so short for fully debating the merits of this question, or at least of debating it in such a way as to justify us in taking a division on the Second Reading of the Bill. I must say that, so far as the mover of the Bill was concerned, none of us who are opposed to this measure, and will have to vote against it if we go to a division, can complain, in the slightest degree, either of the language or of the spirit of the speech in which my hon. friend moved the Second Beading. And that at all events is an improvement upon what has happened in past Parliaments when this Bill has come up for discussion in the House. My hon. friend the Member for West Nottingham has said, and said very truly, that this measure is by no means new to the House of Commons. This is the sixth time during the last nine years that the Bill has been brought before the House, and all those who have been so long in the House are no doubt familiar with the arguments for and against, and, as my hon. friend truly said, looking at the number of times this Bill has been before the House, it is difficult to find new arguments either in its support or its opposition; but as this is a new Parliament, it is only fair that we should state the ground upon which the question was first of all advocated by the Miners' Federation and those who are outside the scope of the Federation. My hon. friend has said it is not the object of this measure to limit the output of coal; but that was really the object with which the agitation in favour of this measure was originally begun. That agitation commenced in 1887, but it only arrived at an acute stage in 1888, and at the Bradford Trades Union Congress, when this question was debated, in a speech delivered by Mr. Samuel Woods, it was distinctly stated among other matters that it was to restrict the output of coal, which was about 20,000,000 tons per annum more than necessary. That was the distinct object with which the agitation was begun, but when it was found that the British consumer would have something to say in respect to any limitation of the output, then the promoters of the Bill took up another line of defence, as their second line of defence, and said that if the hours of labour were reduced employment would be found for a greater number. But the weakness of that line was at once pointed out, which was that if it was intended to keep up the limit of output of coal by the increased intensity of labour during shorter hours, how were you going to find room for more labour? Then when they find their position on these lines untenable, the promoters of this measure take up the third line of defence, that this Bill is calculated to increase the safety of the miners. If they convince me that this Bill conduces to the safety of the miners they have gone a great way towards disarming my opposition and the opposition of those whom I represent in this House. They intend to keep up the production of coal by increasing the intensity of labour, but is the rush and hurry which will thus be created not calculated to increase the risk of the miner rather than diminish the risk which he at present has to contend with? The increased intensity of labour is the very thing which causes in a number of cases the accidents which unfortunately arise from time to time. Now, my hon. friend touched on the question of increased cost, if this Bill were to become law, and he treated that aspect of the question with a light heart; he practically disposed of it with a wave of the hand as being a matter of such small importance that it was not for a moment to occupy the attention of the House of Commons; but I think I shall show before I have finished that, so far as we are concerned in Northumberland, this question of increased expense is of great importance. It is not only calculated to disorganiseour industry, but to injure the men employed in that industry. The hon. Member referred to a statement made to him by the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division of Nottingham, who speaks with great authority upon this subject and upon his authority alleges that this Bill would only increase the price of coal about sixpence a ton, and in answer to the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton he said it would not affect the cost of getting the coal, but the price of coal to the consumer; but if the cost of production be increased by only half that sum it would do much to drive us out of the market in which we have for generations been accustomed to trade. During the debate upon the Workmen's Compensation Act I stated that we in Northumberland had lost a contract with Russia that we had been in the habit of fulfilling for years and years on a margin of threepence a ton. Let hon. Gentlemen bear in mind that Russia was the chief foreign market for Northumberland, and threepence a ton increase would be a very large increase so far as we are concerned. Excellent as was my hon. friend's speech, it did not carry us any further forward. He treated this subject altogether from: an academic point of view, and gave no practical suggestion to get us out of the difficulty that confronts us. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean told the House last year, when this question was before us, that this was not an academic but a practical question of how we were to regulate the system of working our mines. From what takes place both in this House and outside, it would seem that the remedy for the present state of things rests with those who have had least experience of mines; and those who, like myself, have been closely connected with the industry for many years, are the only persons who are utterly at a loss for a remedy which would not inflict greater hardship upon those engaged in this industry. My hon. friend has also stated that there is no other industry whore the conditions of labour are so varied, and yet it is for such an industry as this that they attempt to make cast-iron rules of uniformity. You cannot carry-on such a business on such rigid lines of uniformity. If you are to carry on the industry satisfactorily you must have some elasticity; but those in favour of this Bill would tie us down to a hard and fast rule—a thing they are not prepared to ask for in other industries. My hon. friend said that this was the demand of labour: but is there any industry in the country which is prepared to adopt such lines as are attempted to be forced upon us by this Bill? The very furthest that the Trade Union Congress has ever gone is to pass a resolution for forty-eight hours per week. The whole thing seems to me to be ridiculous in the extreme. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the real difficulty in dealing with this question is the system which prevails in Northumberland and Durham—a system that has existed for more than two generations, a system by which one set of boys, working ten hours a day from bank to bank—[Cries of "Shame."] I shall have something to say in reply to that. These boys have to take away the produce of two sets of coal-getters working fifteen hours a day, calculated from bank to bank. To upset that arrangement would completely revolutionise the system of working our mines in the north of England. You would reduce us to one of two alternatives. You would compel us to adopt the single-shift system, much as we dislike it. In Wales they had thirteen months experience of the double-shift system, working eight hours a day; and at the end of that time a deputation waited upon the mine-owner and requested that he would allow them to return to the old system and work more hours. We have, therefore, either to adopt the single-shift system and dismiss a considerable number of our hewers, or we have to adopt the double-shift system with two sets of boys. Now, that we have fairly and fully considered, and we find it is utterly impossible to get the boys for a double shift. We should want additional boy labour, but we should not have any additional labour for men, and a man would not come into a neighbourhood merely to find occupation for his family if he could find none for himself. As I said before, our boys work ten hours a day. Somebody cried out "Shame," but we in the north are no more wanting in natural affection and parental instinct than you are in other counties, where, in many cases, your boys are employed for longer hours than we employ them in the north. ["No, no!"] I say. Yes, yes! because it is only two years ago that a charge was made that we worked our boys like little galley slaves; and what could be a more shameful charge? We are not more wanting in parental instincts than other men, but even if we were, that would not justify you in working your boys longer hours. When this question was before the House in 1894 we gave to the miners of all outside districts an opportunity of reducing the hours of the boys by agreeing to the passing of the Bill subject to a local option clause—the widest that has ever been suggested in this country by labour—by the exercise of the vote of a simple majority. But they were not prepared to take it for themselves unless they were allowed at the same time to inflict a positive injustice on the people of the north. What is the case so far as foreign competition is concerned? In 1899 the output of coal in Northumberland amounted to 11,000,000 odd tons; out of that 11,000,000 odd tons we exported direct to foreign countries no less than 8,547,000 tons, leaving us for home consumption 2,693,933 tons. So that we in the north have no home market; we depend entirely upon the markets abroad, and the slightest increase in the cost of production would affect us very severely. To Russia alone we in Northumberland send only 708,000 tons less than the combined districts of Wales, Lancashire, Yorkshire, and Scotland, and although we have no ! home market, those who support this Bill desire to strike at these markets in which we have a so much larger interest. I protest against a measure of this kind being passed without due respect being paid to the difficulties which confront us in various directions, and I protest against this attempt to cast upon us this cast-iron uniformity. In conclusion I will say that, so long as we are unable to find for ourselves any practical solution for all these difficulties, so long as our friends who support this measure are unable to suggest a solution for them, it will be our duty to vote against this Bill, which, if it becomes law, is calculated to inflict considerable hardships on a great industry. I beg to support the rejection of the Bill.

I represent in this House more than 10,000 men and boys who are employed in coal mines, and I desire to enter my strongest protest against the way in which His Majesty's Government have curtailed the opportunity for discussing this most important Bill that we have now under consideration. Trades like that of coal mining—an exceptional trade, dangerous and arduous in its character—need exceptional treatment, and the 10,000 men of the Barnsley Division of Yorkshire whom I represent are unanimously in favour of this Bill now under the consideration of the House. I believe it cannot be denied that the great majority of those employed in coal mines throughout Great Britain also support this Bill. What is the object of this Bill? It is that no one shall be employed underground for more than eight hours out of the twenty-four. Now there is one thing upon which I think we are all agreed, and that is that it is indefensible that growing lads of from thirteen to sixteen years of age should be employed underground in a vitiated atmosphere, deprived of daylight and sunshine, for ten hours a day, whilst their fathers and other men are underground for not more than seven hours. These boys are kept underground at a time when it is essential for their proper growth and development that they should have a sufficiency of day light and sunshine in order that their development may go on rapidly. In the rules of the Northumberland Miners Association in 1863, one of their objects was to shorten the hours of labour of boys in mines to eight hours per day. Then at the National Conference of Miners in 1893 the hon. Member for Mid Durham proposed this resolution—

"That in the opinion of this Conference the hours of labour in the mines are in the majority of eases excessively long, and can and should be materially shortened."

So that we are practically all agreed as to the propriety of shortening the hours of boys employed in coal mines, because it cannot be denied that for a young lad to rise at five in the morning, go underground at six, and come out at four leaves him unfit for technical education or continuation schools. To such facts as these is also owing that alarming increase of physical deterioration in the British race which the enormous number of men who volunteered for service in South Africa, and who had been rejected as physically unfit, showed. Hon. Members of the House ought to make it one of their most important duties to safeguard the dangers of such work as this, so that the health of these lads should be protected to the greatest possible extent. I regret that the short time at our disposal to debate this question entirely deprives me of the pleasure of showing to my hon. friend the Member for Wans-beck how the Eight Hours Bill might be applied to Northumberland. The only difference between us is that some of us are seeking to obtain this reform by trades union effort, whilst others think the shortest way is by legislative enactment. What was the result of voluntary effort? It was only by the passing of the Factories Act that boys under sixteen years of age were prevented from working underground for more than ten hours a day, and it was by passing the Coal Mines Regulation Act that the mines of the United Kingdom are to-day working under more satisfactory conditions than before. The time at my disposal prevents my going into detail as to how I should apply this Eight Hours Bill. I am somewhat interested in Durham and Northumberland myself, and if I thought this measure was going to be disastrous to the iron, coal, and steel industries, I should not say a word in support of it. I do not deny that it may add to the cost of production of coal if this Bill is passed. I am to some extent a coal-owner myself, but I am willing that this Bill should be applied compulsorily at the collieries in which I am interested so long as it is applied to all competing collieries. So far as I am advised, the increased cost of production is not quite so serious as that quoted by the hon. Member who moved the motion for the Second Reading of this Bill. Two shifts of men and one shift of boys increased in number would not result in an increase of more than 2d. to 3d. a ton on the average, and with regard to the working of collieries you can only take the average. On both sides we are agreed on the desirability of shortening the hours of labour, especially of boys, and we ought to approach this question in that spirit. It would not be difficult for the masters to find a solution for the difficulties which confront them, and benefit the boys working underground. The issue before us does not affect coal hewers and under-ground datale men, but only a number of boys, and when we have improved the mechanical appliances for getting the coal from the working face to the surface, this concession can be given to the lads.

I rise with considerable diffidence to express my sympathy with the mover of this Bill. What has moved me in this matter is my solicitude on behalf of the boys who work so many hours in the mines, and, although I readily recognise the force of the argument adduced by my friend the Member for Wansbeck, I have not found it so affect my mind as to counterbalance my views as to the condition of these lads in the pits. These lads, many of them only fifteen or sixteen, go to work at six in the morning, and they remain in the pits till four in the afternoon—ten hours—and during the bulk of the year, with the exception of four days a fortnight, they never see the light of day. Now, I know that it is said that if you look at them you find them sturdy, healthy lads, and I remember that some years ago those who represented the mining interests of Durham and Northumberland then, as the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton does now, urged that there was no necessity on the part of Parliament to reduce the hours, that these children were so happy, and bright, and brisk and enjoyed life to such an extent that when they came out of the pits they gambolled about like lambs. We know from the Reports of the Government Commission that the health of the children materially suffered, and my observation has convinced me that morally, mentally, and physically these boys in Durham do suffer from their long confinement in the mines. Therefore it is not so much on behalf of the miners of Yorkshire and Derbyshire that I support the Bill, but what has moved me to come into conflict with some of my constituents has been my solicitude for the pit lads of my county. On that point I am not at all certain whether the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division really represents the majority among the miners. I know that he honestly claims that he does, but I have never hesitated, during the time I have been a Member of this House, now some fifteen years, to express without any fear or qualification my approval of the principle of a measure which will limit the hours of miners' work, and so protect the children from what I believe is an evil that exists under present circumstances. May I refer very briefly to some of the arguments which have been used to-day? An hon. Member who opposed the measure used the stale argument that you have no right to legislate for adults. This is no innovation. Legislation for adults commenced in 1847 by the passing of the Factory Act. It is true that it was not eight hours, but ten hours, then; and by a series of legislative enactments, passed in spite of similar arguments to those used to-day, and passed through, the kindly interest of the Conservative party at the time, in 1850, 1870, and 1874 Parliament has directly or indirectly legislated upon the hours during which adults should be employed, and therefore it seems to me there is no force whatever in the argument which says. that people should be allowed to work out their own destiny by voluntary effort. Upon that point of voluntary effort may I make this observation? It seems to me—and it was aptly put by a former speaker—that it is very much better that the public through their representatives should legislate upon matters which affect the public at large than that a section of the population belong- ing to one particular trade, without conferring with others and without obeying what is the obvious desire of the public, should assert by voluntary effort what might be opposed to the interests of the others. In other words, this is a legislative machine for the purpose of giving effect to what is believed to be not merely for the interest of any particular class, hut what is believed to be for the interest of the community at large. I agree that that is an academic argument, and I do not want to press it. What does the hon Member for the Wansbeek Division mean when he contends that you are going to attain this by voluntary effort?

protested against the statement just made by the hon. Member. He never contended that this limitation should be brought about by voluntary effort. His position had been clearly stated throughout the whole debate.

I willingly accept my friend's renunciation of my suggestion. What I do know is that the argument is used in this House. Let me ask this question—How is it to be effected? It certainly car not be effected by voluntary effort on the part of the miners. [An HON. MEMBER: Why not?] Because the employers have laid down a non possumus. I heard from the mouth of the hon. Baronet opposite that it means ruin to the trade of this country, and we have heard over and over again that the great bulk of the employers will not support the Eight Hours Bill. How can an eight-hour day be obtained except by legislation? It can only be obtained from costly, disastrous, and deplorable strikes, and I am not sure that it can be obtained by strikes. Anyone who takes the trouble to look through the records of strikes will find that almost every strike—or, at all events, a very large percentage of the strikes, for the reduction of the hours of labour—has been abortive. It comes to this, then, if you are going to get an eight-hour day you must get it by legislation, or you will not get it at all. I admit freely that the economic difficulty is undoubtedly a serious one. I am not able myself to appreciate it. I am not able myself to thoroughly grasp what the consequences will be, but why is that? Because the Gentlemen who oppose this measure on the grounds of the economic difficulty do not condescend to give us any particulars. I should like to ask them this question—What is the rate of wages in relation to the cost of output? What, on the average output, do wages represent? I should like to know the amount paid in wages in reference to the question of profit. The very same arguments which are used to-day about the destruction of trade were used as far back as the year 1847, and if anyone will take up Hansard for that year he will find that practically he might be reading the very debate which is taking place in the House now. There are one or two points to which my hon. friend the Member for Wansbeck referred to which I wish to refer very briefly. We were told there would be a decrease in the output and an increase in the price. We were told by the hon. Baronet the Member for West Wolverhampton that certain mines worked only twenty days in January, that the average time of the men's work was three, four, and five days a week, and that very often they did not work more than three days a week. Now, what do we propose to do? The Bill proposes, where a reduction would be necessary, to reduce the hours of labour by some hour, hour and a half, or two hours a day. Might I not fairly suggest to the hon. Baronet and to my hon. friend the Member for the Wansbeck Division that it is not an unreasonable argument that instead of working spasmodically, as you are doing now, three or four days a week for ten hours, you should work steadily for five or six days a week seven or eight hours a day? Therefore, it appears to me that, so far from tending to reduce the output and increase the price, you would simply have a regular and more persistent output and more regular and persistent employment. Let me say to those who are going to vote on this question, whether they be representatives of workmen or employers, that a large number of men of experience, aye, and some of them men who have risen from the position of working miners, will be found, not voting with the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division, but voting with those who oppose him.

I rise to oppose the Bill. I do so on the following grounds. The hon. Member opposite asked—What is the rate of wages? I am in a position to give him the rate of wages that has been paid at my own colliery in three mines during the seven weeks of this year. I hope this will be an answer to his inquiry. The rate of wages has been 12s. per day in one mine, 9s. per day in the second mine, and 12s. per day in the third mine.