I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (4).

This Sub-section was not in the original Bill, but was introduced in Grand Committee by the Under-Secretary of State. The recommendation as to the air current in the main return airway not containing more than ½ per cent. of inflammable gas is not found in the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and the Subsection seems to me inconsistent with the provision in the later part of the Bill.

I beg to second the Amendment.

This Sub-section, as the hon. Member says, was not among the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and was put in in Grand Committee in a rather tentative manner, and I agreed with the Committee that before the Report stage I would see that a special investigation was made to see what the effect would be of the standard now set up. The results are rather remarkable as far as the chemical analysis of the air is concerned. We have taken samples of air in the main return airway in mines in all parts of the country, and have found it very difficult to get a mine with a standard below one-half per cent. of inflammable gas. That is a new fact which was not realised before we set out on a systematic search. We find also that it would be quite impossible in a large number of mines to conform to this regulation. The chief inspector made a very careful examination of the whole problem, and said that in many cases even the increased ventilation necessary to reduce the standard to one-half per cent., if feasible, would be even more dangerous, and that practically ventilation was up to the maximum possible without danger. In those circumstances I think I have no other alternative to offer the Committee but to confine the provisions of the Subsection to mines newly opened after the passing of the Act. Of course, that does not in the least degree prevent the continuous application of the other safety provisions in connection with the return airway. As everyone knows, dust is more and more being proved to be a greater danger than gas. We have very elaborate and stringent provisions in the coal dust Clauses for the prevention of coal dust accumulations, especially in the airways, either intake or return, and those provisions we shall press forward, but I cannot undertake the responsibility of advising that we should practically prohibit the haulage at the present time of many millions of tons, as would happen if this provision were enforced. I therefore propose, if the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment, to move an Amendment to the Clause limiting the application of this particular Sub-section to mines newly opened after the passing of the Act.

I think that the action of the Government in this matter confirms what we said in Committee, that when the Government take it upon themselves without any evidence whatever, laid either before the Committee or before the Royal Commission, to make alterations in a Bill of a purely technical character without full information, they would be placed in the invidious position in which they are now. I entirely dissent from the view that where there is any considerable percentage of gas in the return airway the haulage should be continued in that return. Where you have, for example, electric signal wires, as is now the case in nearly all the mines of the country, and where there are percentages of gas, it must be dangerous for coal to be hauled in such returns. I said in Committee that I thought ½ per cent. was too low a standard to take. I entirely dissent from the statement of the Under-Secretary that in nearly all the mines of the country the return averages show over ½ per cent. of gas. That is wholly contrary to the fact.

I said that samples were taken in six or seven mines in every district, and that in nearly all there was over ½ per cent. of gas.

I do not suppose there was any agitation on the part of the people who had gas in their return airways, and the mines referred to are those to which the inspector's attention has been directed. But that is not the statement the Under-Secretary made. His statement was that in the great majority of mines the percentage of gas in the return airway was about ½ per cent. The mines in South Wales with which I am associated are extremely fiery, but in the return airways I know of no case where we have anything like ½ per cent. of gas. There may be mines in which on analysis that percentage is exceeded, but taking the coalfields of the United Kingdom as a whole it is quite untrue to say there is anything like 1 per cent. of gas in the return airways. I believe, in some of the South Wales mines, where there are large quantities of gas given off, that it would be impossible to conform to this Section of the Bill as it at present stands. But if they are giving off over ½ per cent. of gas, that is no reason why a higher standard should not be inserted in the Bill. Therefore I propose to move an Amendment to the effect that we take out the words "one half per cent." and insert "one per cent." I do not think there is any excuse for anyone to have more than 1 per cent. in the return airway. I believe the most gaseous mines in the whole of the United Kingdom to-day are those in the Doncaster district. According to the chief inspector, the circumstances which exist there are unknown in the whole history of mines in this country.

Not only have you gas given off in enormous quantities, but in addition you have spontaneous combustion present with the gas. The inspector pointed out that these conditions have not up to the present time prevailed in the coalfields, because in Staffordshire and in other districts where spontaneous combustion takes place gas is not present, but in this new coalfield at Doncaster you have gas associated with spontaneous combustion. I can only say that in the Doncaster district, in connection with the first mine opened there, and of which I am the managing director, coal was hauled in the return airway. We encountered considerable difficulties with the gas. We found that enormous quantities of gas were given off, and we were compelled, for the sake of safety, to discontinue using the return airways. In the South Yorkshire district, where enormous quantities of gas are given off, it might at any time mean, with the presence of electric signal wires, that an inflammable mixture of gas might prevail. In point of fact, I have known time after time, in the main return ways of those mines in the Doncaster district, that the percentage of gas was not ½ per cent., but an inflammable mixture of 5 or 6 per cent. When those gases are given off in such enormous quantities the only thing to do is to at once withdraw the men. There is passed through the return ways 260,000 feet of wind heavily charged with gas, and you are going to allow people to haul coal where there is a mixture of inflammable gas in the return way. In the mines of South Wales the chief inspector found there was 1½ per cent. of gas in the return way, and he became convinced that it would not be practicable to apply this Clause generally over the coalfield; and the Under-Secretary has again put an Amendment upon the Paper, I suppose as the result of that inspection. Why does the hon. Gentleman pass from his former proposal? His Amendment in my opinion met the difficulties of the case. Instead of that, at the last moment, although this is one of the most highly important matters, this Clause is to be taken out, and people are to be allowed under the Bill, where there is an inflammable mixture of gas in the return way, to haul coal. I have given definite instructions that in the mines with which I am connected, where gas is given off, no coal shall be hauled in the return ways. We have done away with the hauling of coal in the return ways except in one small district, and in another month no coal will be hauled in any of the return ways. To give everybody permission to return minerals in the return ways is an unwise proceeding, and, if it be necessary, I shall certainly divide on this question.

I think the Under-Secretary has been very wise in limiting the application of this Sub-section to mines newly opened, because, if he had insisted on the Sub-section being applied to existing collieries, it is undoubtedly the fact that a very large number of collieries in the country would have had to be closed. I am told that no less than 33,000 men in South Wales alone would have been thrown out of work. It takes something over 6 per cent. of inflammable gas without coal dust to be explosive, but a very much less quantity mixed with coal dust would cause an explosion. But we have now systematic watering in South Wales which reduces any danger from coal dust. It is very difficult to understand why a man should be prohibited from working in the return airway if there is more than ½ per cent. of gas. In Clause 66 of the Bill provision is made as to the use of safety lamps, and if it is safe for a man to work in any part of the mine with anything from 1½ to 2½ per cent. of gas present, surely it must be safe for him to work in the return airway. It is known that the airway is more humid than any other part of the mine which tends towards safety. I think, to put anything like a ½ per cent. or 1 per cent. into the Clause where the chief inspector found in a great number of the mines he visited 1½ or 2 per cent. being worked with absolute safety would be absolute folly. It would be absolutely impossible to keep a number of pits going if you insist on this Section. The men would be thrown out of work, and we know that in connection with the Eight Hours Act they have been considerably reduced. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Therefore if you are going to further diminish them by provisions of this kind you are going to make the working of large collieries impossible, except at a heavy loss. I hope the Home Secretary will stick to what he has said, and also put in a reasonable percentage even with regard to new pits.

I very much regret that upon all the occasions of this House taking into consideration any mining legislation or any legislation affecting colliery owners, that the hon. Baronet and his Friends so overstate their case. That might be expected from the Labour Benches more than from those benches. If there is any exaggeration of the case it comes from the colliery owners in this House. When you were going to give the miners compensation it was going to close half the mines of this country, and when you were going to reduce the hours to eight hours per day, it was going to close more than half, and it would be simply ruinous. While I admit that it may mean cost to some colliery owners to prevent haulage in the return airway, I do ask the House seriously not to attach any importance to the highly exaggerated statement of the case by the hon. Baronet. I should like to ask the Home Office whether the inquiries they have been making with regard to the ½ per cent. have been confined to the collieries where they are at present hauling coal in the return airway. It seems to me that those are the only collieries where the inquiries should be made. Here is a highly dangerous practice admitted by the Home Office, and they seek to remedy it. While it may be necessary for the House to mitigate the hardship which admittedly there will be in the conversion to increase the percentage to 1 per cent., even that is taking a dangerous step indeed. I am really astonished at this stage of the Bill that the Under-Secretary should attempt an important alteration of this kind. If the present intake is not available for putting in haulage, surely there are very easy means of converting the present haulage roads into main intakes. In some places I admit it may be difficult. On behalf of my hon. Friends who sit on these benches, I strongly urge, if any alteration at all is to be made, that the alteration should be made rather on the lines suggested by the hon. Baronet if it is absolutely necessary, but I do not think so. The other hon. Baronet, who is in Opposition, told us it wanted a much less percentage of gas. Let the House realise what it means. You have possibly a thousand miners working in the face of a pit for eight hours making coal dust, and with every stroke of their picks releasing this highly explosive gas. All that coal dust and gas finds its way into the main return airway. It is carried off and travels with a great velocity there. In that return airway of a half mile or a mile or two miles or three miles or four miles, you have travelling at a high rate of speed a train of coal every few minutes, stirring up this dust and mixing it with this ½ per cent. or 1 per cent. of highly inflammable gas, it may be, and having there a highly explosive mixture. An electric signal wire, possibly coming into contact with steel, may set this mixture ablaze at any moment. I am astonished at the proposal, and I hope the Home Office will reconsider the position they are taking up on this matter.

My hon. Friend was hardly justified in assuming that the Under-Secretary had accepted the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman opposite. He has not accepted the Amendment, and he spoke, I can assure my hon. Friend, with very full consideration of this Clause by the Home Office. This is not a proposal which was recommended by the Royal Commission. On examination it is found that to forbid the use of the return airway for the carriage of coal where there was gas over ½per cent. would prevent the working of collieries in South Wales in which at the present time eight million tons of coal are got. That is a very serious matter, and consequently it is quite obvious that a re-examination of the Clause became necessary. In the first place, the Government do not propose to accept the Amendment which proposes to delete this Subsection. On the contrary, they propose to retain the Sub-section and to make it applicable to new mines only. My hon. Friend (Sir A. Markham) asks why we do not rely on the power to exempt mines from the operation of this Sub-section.

The Government Amendment put down the day before yesterday.

Yesterday morning we had a very careful consideration of this particular point, and upon the evidence I came to the conclusion that it would be my duty to give an exemption in every case. In these circumstances I thought it would be better not to proceed by a proviso giving power to exempt, but to confine the operation of the Sub-section to new mines only. What, as a matter of fact, do we attempt to do, and, I believe, shall succeed in doing? Under Clause 29 we take care to ensure improved ventilation. Under Clause 61 steps are taken to prevent coal dust. Undeniably, when you have gas in the return airway, and a quantity of coal dust mixing with the air, you have a very inflammable mixture. But we shall take special precautions to see that all the requirements for the prevention of coal dust are carried out in those mines in which there is danger in the use of the return airway. It would be impracticable to close these mines, and shut down the carrying of 8,000,000 tons of coal. If the hon. Member for Mansfield, who, I recognise, is a great authority on these matters, will give his mind fully to the provisions of Clause 61, and see how adequate are the requirements there laid down for the prevention of coal dust, I think he will agree that we have there, coupled with Clause 29, sufficient safeguards to ensure that in the return airway there shall not be such danger as to render the retention of this Sub-section in its present form necessary. I hope the House will believe that in this matter we are acting on the advice of His Majesty's inspectors. Again I say, this is not a proposal recommended by the Royal Commission, who had all the evidence before them, and in the circumstances it would not be right to impose now a condition so injurious to the coal trade of South Wales, especially in view of the security which we obtain by other Clauses of the Bill.

(who was very indistinctly heard): It is rather unfortunate that the hon. Member opposite should have endeavoured, as always, to lecture those who do not see eye to eye with him, and to suggest that all that the coal-owners desired was to extract further profits.

I did not use the word "profit" at all. I simply called attention to the exaggeration of the case as put forward by the hon. Baronet.

This is a Bill for securing greater safety in mines, and we are all interested in bringing about that end. It is obviously not to the interest of the coal-owner to run any risks in the mine, and I do not think there are any coal-owners in the country so short-sighted as to desire to do so. The right hon. Gentleman desires to prevent dislocation of trade all over the country, and it is not right to suggest that it is merely in the interests of the coal-owners. We are perfectly prepared to meet the right hon. Gentleman in what he has done, and we are grateful for the manner in which he is trying to meet us.

I quite understand the point of view put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, but it seems to me that the present proposal, although it will deal with new mines, will never alter the position in existing mines. I think there ought to be some time limit, or some possibility of the Home Office making regulations gradually to bring these mines into a proper condition, so that they may be more secure in the future. That point is not touched at all.

It is quite true that the Royal Commission made no recommendation in the direction of the Clause as the Government originally drafted it, but all through the report pointed to discouraging the use of return airways for haulage purposes, and that is the object of every one here. Therefore, I do not understand why, in regard to existing mines, the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers propose to do nothing in the direction of bringing to an end the practice of using return airways for haulage purposes. My right hon. Friend thinks that the standard of ½ per cent. has been proved by recent investigations to be too high. That may be so, but it is rather significant that in the Clause as originally drafted the Government took ¼per cent., and afterwards raised it to ½per cent. If the standard of ½per cent. be too high, did the recent investigations point to the possibility of having an efficient standard at all? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to do nothing beyond the Clauses in the Bill to set up a standard below which the return airways shall not be used for haulage purposes? If ½ per cent. is too high, why not 1 per cent. or at any rate some standard below which the use of return airways for this purpose shall be automatically prevented?

The answer to my hon. Friend is extremely simple. We do not wish to fix a standard of 1 per cent. up to which a mine may work, because the moment you fix a standard it is always regarded as the standard of safety within which you may do exactly what you like.

Very ingenious.

That is why it is undesirable to set up any such standard.

In all the circumstances of the case I shall be prepared to withdraw my Amendment, if the Government will adhere to their Amendment.

The discussion that has now taken place has proved what I ventured to say last night, that so long as you rely exclusively upon the safety lamps all sorts of laxity is allowed in other directions. The Clause as it appears in the Bill is probably unworkable. Certainly the Government, in the Amendment they have tabled, have gone to the other extreme. A provision which would apply this new rule to new mines only means that for the next twenty-five years the great bulk of mines in the country will continue working under the present conditions. The return airway will still continue to be used for haulage purposes. The hon. Baronet the Member for South Monmouthshire has shown that that means continuous danger in mines. But I rise mainly because of the statement that the passing of the Clause in the form in which it appears in the Bill will lead to a reduction of the output, as, it is said, the Mines Eight Hours Act had done. If that statement is to go to the country unchallenged, it will produce the effect that we on these benches want to restrict the output not for the sake of safety, but for other purposes. We deny that the passing of this Clause will in anyway affect the output. We point to the fact that in spite of the predictions of the mine-owners in the House and out of it as to the effect of the Eight Hours Act upon the output, that the inspector's report shows that during the year 1910, when the Act was in full operation, there was an actual increase of 534,026 tons over the preceding year. These figures are conclusive. Our contention is that the more efficient and safe you make the mines the better, not only for the workmen, but for the mine-owners as well. Therefore I would like to support the suggestion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield to leave the Clause in, but to delete the one word "one-half" and allow 1 per cent. If that be done, a very distinct move will be made towards increasing the safety of the mines and lessening the dangers.

I rise to appeal to those in the House who are neither mine-owners or miners' representatives. The course of the Debate in the House is following the lines of the Debate in the Committee. That is a duel between the Labour party and the mine-owners. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Well, it appears to me to be so, and the Under-Secretary, who was extremely fair in Committee, is just as fair in this House. His duty is to protect not only the miners and mine-owners, but that very much larger community the user of the coal. The last speaker referred to those extraordinary precautions which some Members say are not necessary—that they are also in the interest of the mine-owner. I agree with that. But the more unnecessary precautions you take the higher you raise the cost of coal, and the more profit it will be for the miner and the mine-owners, while the rest of the community suffers. It is therefore to those Members who are not specially interested in either of the parties to this duel that I appeal not to let sentiment but common sense sway them in their voting. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hear ironical cheers from the Labour Benches. The speeches of hon. Members there have been, in my opinion, extremely moderate, able, and fair. But the point that I want to impress is that the Under-Secretary is fair and Members should support him, and think something of the consumer as well as the two classes I have named.

Perhaps I may clear up some little misunderstanding, and answer the question put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Warner). Hon. Members will be acting under a very grave misapprehension if they think that we are going to do nothing—that the only alternative to removing this Clause is to do nothing. The reason why we do not want to fix a higher standard than ½ per cent. is that we want to do everything in our power to bring the standard down universally below

I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the word "whether" ["any mine or seam whether opened"] and to insert instead thereof the word "newly."

I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the word "the" ["and the side"], and to insert instead thereof the word "one."

The object of this Amendment is to carry out what was really the intention of the Government, that is where tubs are uncoupled it is necessary, if the rail is single, to have two feet on the one side of the road where the man stands who uncouples, but where there are double sets of rails the Government provide for three feet between such rails, or three feet on each side of the rails. I think the Under-Secretary will be willing to accept my Amendment as part of his intention.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment, but I have already gone some distance towards meeting this point. By our present proposal we leave the first part as it stands, but we give an alternative, and we say that either there must be two feet on both sides of the tub or three feet, and not two feet, between the two lines of rails, in which case the line can be up against the wall, and my inspectors say the nearer the wall the safer. Considering the evidence we have before us of the considerable number of accidents and the death-rate especially among boys, which is a rather tragic death-rate owing to this clear space not being provided, I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not press his Amendment.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "and between tubs standing on two parallel lines of rails," and to insert instead thereof the words "or where there are two parallel lines of rails, a clear space of at least three feet between tubs standing on those rails."

All those familiar with the discussion in the Committee know that there is some necessity for an alteration of this Clause, but we do not think it is necessary to go as far as the Under-Secretary proposes to go. We think the space is much more valuable on either side of the rails. The coupling of these trains often take place on steep gradients and if you happen to have a runaway, if you have this amount of space between, probably two or three horses will be standing in the space between the man and his place of refuge from the runaway, and there is simply no space to run to at all and the man is hemmed in. That would be introducing another danger. We are prepared to support the Under-Secretary in simply leaving out the words he has proposed to leave out without inserting the words suggested in the Amendment, otherwise we shall be compelled to oppose this Amendment. We are prepared to leave out the provision of two feet between the rails which is reducing the space required by two feet if you leave in the provision providing for two feet on either side. I think that is a reasonable attitude to take up.

Our Amendment is supported by the opinion of experts, and I submit that my hon. Friend might allow the alternative. My inspectors think it is safer to have three feet in the middle.

We know better.

But I cannot put aside the opinions of the inspectors, backed up as they are by the Royal Commission. If you insist upon the rails being close, and allow the space between the wall, there is a danger of the boys being nipped.

It is just the other way about.

When two tubs are coming, if the lines are close together, there is a danger of the boys being nipped between them.

There is no necessity for the boys to go between the rails at all if you have the proper space.

I think the suggestion made by the hon. Member for West Monmouthshire is an excellent one. In the case mentioned when the tub was coming down the man would have to work left-handed. It is preferable to have the room on either side of the tubs and that alternative ought to be given. You are proposing to increase the width of the rails unnecessarily, and I think it would be safer to have the increased space between the tubs and the wall. In this matter hon. Members below the Gangway are better experts than the inspectors, because some of them speak from experience. The people I have discussed the matter with think the space on either side is much more preferable than having it in the middle. There is the point which the Under-Secretary mentioned about two tubs meeting each other where there is no room. A boy might get crushed. If the roads were made on either side, he need not go between the tubs.

I would like to reinforce the appeal made by my hon. Friend. I can assure the Under-Secretary it is not for the purpose of vexatious opposition we are taking up this attitude. It is perfectly well known to every worker in the mine that the place of safety is not in the centre of the roads, but at the side of the roads. We did recognise there was what might be held to be a rather costly burden being put upon the employers if it was proposed to make the spaces both at the sides and in the centre, and we also felt there was a real risk of the spaces created becoming dangerous to life. If we took out the provision with regard to the middle space and left the spaces at each side, it would enable the roadway to be narrowed where the boxes are coupled and uncoupled and yet give the necessary provision for safety at the sides of the road. At the very last inquest I attended at a colliery in South Lancs, not far from Wigan, the death occurred under the conditions which the Under-Secretary proposes to provide. The man was in the centre of the roadway. There was ample space in the middle, but the full boxes from above came down, and there was no other way to escape. There were no refuge holes. It was really on the part where the boxes were being coupled and uncoupled. The man could not get into any refuge at the side. Had there been two feet clear space at each side, the man might have climbed over and got into safety. Unless you do provide clear spaces at the sides, it is simply trifling with the question to provide space in the centre. The rope breaks or the chain slips and the boxes run away, and, when boys are coupling boxes in the shunt, they are killed. If there are spaces at the sides, and they can climb over to them, they escape death. May we appeal to the Under-Secretary? We are not putting this forward in any captious spirit, but simply to make the Bill as good as we can.

I think my hon. Friends are rather under a misapprehension about this. There are very few cases where the provision for three feet between the two rails will be carried out. Most people are of opinion it is more convenient to have two feet on each side. The whole thing seems to rest whether the pressure from the weight above will render it necessary to have a prop in the centre to support the roof, and it is quite clear, where you have a prop in the centre, the spaces must be on the outside. Where there is no such pressure, and the natural strata of the place allows it, I think most coal-mine managers would prefer to have two feet space on either side. I think it is quite necessary, however, to have some such proviso as has been suggested to meet special cases.

If the Under-Secretary's Amendment is incorporated in the Bill a colliery will be free to choose one alternative or the other. They can have either the two feet on each side or three feet in the centre.

The choice being left to the managers.

It is quite clear if they want three feet in the centre they need not provide the spaces at the side. I want to make it quite clear the alternative is there. I am not sure that in some cases it might not be very much better to have the space in the middle, though I know it is more dangerous generally. I think we might leave the selection to be determined by the local conditions.

I cannot admit there is a real alternative. It appears to me, reading it literally, it means that "where there are two parallel lines of rails," there shall be a clear space of three feet between the tubs standing on those rails. Where you have two parallel sets of rails it is imperative there shall be a space of three feet between the tubs, and not spaces of two feet on either side. That is the way I interpret it, and I think that is the way it would be interpreted by a Court of Law. I am entirely in sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. Member opposite. Speaking on behalf of those who work in the Forest of Dean coalfield, I may say that, although they would infinitely prefer to have the two alternatives, their own experience would leave them to believe it would be more safe, at any rate for the boys, to have the spaces at the sides rather than in the middle between the tubs. After all, it is commonsense, whatever the experts may say. The natural inclination of a person seeking safety is to go to the side of the road rather than to the middle It is at the side the manholes are provided, and the inclination of a boy who has no great experience would be to seek safety in the direction in which in other respects he would naturally seek it. Whatever the experts say, I hope the Under-Secretary will see his way to accept the suggestion of those who are really experienced in coal mines.

I wish to support the remarks which have fallen from the hon. Member opposite. Speaking on behalf of my friends in the Forest of Dean, it would be far better to have the spaces on either side of the trams. If the space is made between the trams, it would be far more dangerous than if the boys were allowed to work and spaces were provided for them on either side. The trams move in opposite directions, and that leads to the great confusion of the boys who are usually employed in this work. I hope the Government will therefore see their way either to give us the alternative or to provde for the spaces at the side and not in the middle.

There is no doubt at all, and my learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland agrees with me, if my Amendment is carried, we are offering a clear alternative. If there should be any doubt I will take care it is put right, because that is absolutely the intention of the Government. I do not think the Gentlemen who have spoken from below the Gangway ought to divide against us in this matter, because it is a real case of disagreement in expert evidence. A certain number think the best way of arranging the matter is to have the spaces between the wall and the road, and that is freely provided for in this Clause. Others who have made a life study of this subject, including my inspector and the Royal Commission, think it more essential to have the space between the tubs. They say if you give three feet between the tubs, especially where there is a danger of the breaking away of the walls, it is the better system. Surely, therefore, the best thing would be to accept the Government Amendment.

I think, with all due deference to the hon. and learned Gentleman, the legal construction of these words would be this. The first part of the Clause relates to where there is a single line, and the second part is governed by the words "or where there are two parallel lines." Where there are two parallel lines it is compulsory to have the space in the middle.

There is no option.

I think we do want some words to make the matter clear.

I guarantee to make it right.

I do not quite understand what is the undertaking of the Under-Secretary. It is perfectly clear there is no alternative where you have two sets of parallel lines. There the three feet in between operates. If the Under-Secretary gives a definite undertaking that where there are two sets of parallel rails it may be left for decision as to whether there shall be three feet in the centre or two feet on either side, I think we may agree with him. I do not know whether that is so.

That is so.

As Sub-section (3) is worded, I submit that it would mean that you must have a clear space of at least two feet on each side of the line of rails, even in a place where there is a single line of rails. Is that the intention of the Under-Secretary? Because I understood that he said that in places where there was a single line of rails he only intended that the two feet should be on one side of the rails, and not on both sides.

It is. I have already given the undertaking that it shall be made perfectly clear.

I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to insert the words, "Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply to any district in any seam in any mine the probable duration of which district is less than three years from the coming into operation of this Act."

It is very important, in view of the heavy expense that will be incurred through these alterations, that there should be ample time in which to do the work. I hope the Under-Secretary will accept the addition of these words in order to give the mine-owners time to complete the work.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I made a promise in Committee not to impose large structural expense upon mines of very short duration, which might necessitate the mine being closed altogether.

Does that involve the acceptance of this particular Amendment.

Yes.

Who will determine the probable duration? I remember, check-weigher, that the statement was common, "This mine will work out in twelve months," and I have known mines doomed to extinction which are now in the hey-day of prosperity. There is no term more disputatious than "probable duration." This Bill does not come into operation until January, 1913—[HON. MEMBERS: July, 1912.]—and this provision will not come into operation within three years from that time, so that wherever there is danger existing that danger is not to be dealt with if the probable duration of a mine is not going to be more than three years. I want to know who is going to determine the probable duration. Is the danger to be permitted to go on unheeded. The Sub-section at present runs,

"Where in the case of any existing mine compliance with the requirements of this Sub-section would necessitate the removal of arching or other masonry work, or where in the case of any mine sets of trains of tubs are coupled or uncoupled at the face,"

other regulations may be made. Surely that meets the whole position. All this talk about the heavy expense being required is simply flapdoodle—to put it very mildly. You ought to have a two feet space at the sides of a shunt where young people are engaged under conditions which in many cases invite disaster. To say that the necessity of making the two feet space at each side of the road where parallel line of tubs are standing will involve such an expense that, in the case of a mine, the probable duration of which is going to be only till 1916, it will put the owner to a ruinous loss, is simply nonsense. This is whittling down a Bill which has already been whittled down seriously in Committee. I consider that in Committee we got to the minimum conditions of safety; now we are undermining those. It is ridiculous to assume this Amendment is necessary. I must protest against the Under-Secretary constantly receiving from colliery owners proposals which can only have the effect of whittling down the already existing minimum of safety.

Throughout the proceedings in Grand Committee I very often found myself entirely in agreement with the hon. Member who has just spoken, but in this respect I cannot. He has suggested that this is an attempt on the part of the coal-owners to get out of their natural obligation under the Bill.

I am asked to speak on this Clause not only by the coal-owners, but by the representatives of the men working in the Forest of Dean area. They, so far from being contented with the three years' limit, have asked that a period of seven years should be provided in the case of all mines likely to be exhausted within that period, and I have incorporated that in an Amendment. Most of those who represent mining interests in this House are associated with very large mining undertakings. The district which my hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Webb) and I represent consists largely of small mines, and any considerable structural alterations would materially affect the future existence of those mines. Although I fully admit that what the hon. Member (Mr. S. Walsh) has said is perfectly relevant as regards the large mines to be found in the North of England and in South Wales, it would not be applicable to the sort of mines with which I am familiar in the Forest of Dean. At the same time I think this particular Amendment is not by any means well drafted, and I am inclined to think it will be an exceedingly difficult one for the Home Office to interpret. Who is going to decide what the probable duration of a mine is? I think it will be extremely difficult to decide in a faulty district, where a mine may appear to have come to an end, and, in consequence of piercing the fault, the mine may live longer than was anticipated. I suggest in my own Amendment it should be left to one of the inspectors of the Home Office to decide definitely whether a mine does or does not come within that category, otherwise I am sorry for the Home Office if they have to interpret such a Clause as this. I hope the Under-Secretary will not be biassed by what has fallen from the Labour Benches as to this Amendment, and I certainly hope that in the case of the Forest of Dean a longer period will be granted.

Will it not be possible to come to an agreement on this Amendment if we leave out the word "probable" and insert after the word "is" ["duration of which district is"] the words "in the opinion of the Secretary of State." It will then read,

"Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply to any district in any seam in any mine the duration of which district is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, less than three years from the coming into operation of this Act."

Would it not do if it were put generally that the Sub-section should not apply to mines or seams which, in the opinion of the inspector, are at the time of the passing of the Bill within three years of exhaustion?

I think we had better leave the Secretary of State alone.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the words "twenty-five" ["within twenty-five yards of the working-face"], and to insert instead thereof the word "fifty."

This Sub-section is a new one, put in at the instance of the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham). If reference is made to the Report of Standing Committee "B" on the Coal Mines Bill, page 109, it will be found that the Sub-section runs,

"(4) Provided always that refuge holes need not be provided on roads within fifty yards of the working face."

Now it is found in the Bill as not fifty, but twenty-five yards. I think the attention of the Under-Secretary was drawn to it, and he said that fifty yards was a mistake. It is a curious thing that we should find that in the Standing Committee's Report fifty yards is mentioned. I propose that we abide by the Report of the Standing Committee.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I agree with the hon. Baronet that there was an unfortunate mistake, for which, of course, the Home Office is not responsible. There is a divergence in the Report of the Committee's proceedings and the actual doings of the Committee. The matter was brought to the attention of the officials of the House in order to correct the statement. It now appears in the Bill as twenty-five yards. The decision of the Committee was twenty-five yards, and we ask the House to maintain the decision of the Committee. I want to make it quite clear that that does not mean, if the decision is maintained, that there is to be a manhole within twenty-five yards of the working-face. Sub-section (2) says,

"Every haulage road on which the haulage is worked by animal power shall be provided with sufficient refuge holes at intervals of not more than twenty-five yards."

And then under Sub-section (4) it is provided that the refuge hole need not be provided on roads within twenty-five yards of the working-face.

I ask leave to withdraw.

I beg to move, in Subjection (2), after the word "without" ["to pass without rubbing itself"], to insert the words "the possibility of its." The Sub-section will then read,

"Every road on which a horse or other animal is used underground or by which it has to pass to get to its work shall be of sufficient dimensions to allow the horse or other animal to pass without the possibility of its rubbing itself or its harness against the roof or sides or the bars or props supporting the roof or sides."

The reason why I move this Amendment is because of an experience which I had underground two months ago. I was visiting the underground workings of a mine in the Forest of Dean, in company with the manager, and as I passed a horse with some tubs behind him, the horse brought its head with a crack against one of the roof timbers, and at once the horse appeared to be stunned, and, of course, stopped dead. Th manager appeared to be surprised that the tubs had stopped, and he called out to the man in charge, "What is the matter? Why don't the tubs move on?" and I remarked to the manager, "This horse has just received a severe crack on the head owing to the lowness of the roof." The answer was, "That was very stupid of him. He ought to have lowered his head." If this Clause reads as it is drafted it will exactly apply to the case of a horse such as that, which could pass such a roof-timber if he lowered his head. We all know that the conditions in mines do not admit of a horse using that degree of intelligence which he might in the full daylight above ground, and I am quite certain that in this particular case this horse, considering the poor light in which he was moving, could not have seen this timber and have avoided getting the serious blow on his head which he actually received. It is a very reasonable Amendment. I ask to have it so amended as to ensure that the roof shall in every case be high enough to prevent the possibility of a horse reciving a crack on the head owing to the roof-timbers being as low as they were in this particular case. As the Clause reads at present it would be perfectly possible to admit the case of which I was a witness coming within the four corners of this Bill.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I really, with all the best wish in the world, could not accept this. It adds nothing to the Clause, and in practice it would be quite impossible to enforce. Every one of these items which have been put down imposes a contravention if it is violated. On what kind of evidence could a Court determine whether there would be a possibility of an animal rubbing itself against the side? It is an offence for an animal to rub itself under the Act.

All you have to do, as was done in this particular case, is to measure the height of the roadway and the height of the horse.

The Amendment only deals with the possibility of a horse rubbing against the side. The Bill goes much further than the Amendment when it says if a horse rubs itself against the side it shall be a contravention of the Act.

The result of the Amendment would be that there could not be any underground passages at all. There is always the possibility of a horse rubbing against the side, if there is a side, so that there could be no side underground. I agree with the point made by the hon. Member, and I hope the Home Office will insist on this being carried out, but I do not think we can ask more than that the animal in its normal position shall have a free passage. I quite agree it should not be expected that the animal should lower its head, but the passage should be high enough and wide enough that the animal should be able to pass through.

The Amendment is rather complicated, and I am not quite certain whether it will achieve my hon. Friend's object, but the case he has made out is such a good one that some means should be taken to meet the difficulties which he has shown us by practical experience do occur. Of course, it is perfectly evident that under the Clause, if it can be proved that a horse can get through a particular passage provided everything is all right, there can be no offence under the Act. When a horse pulls a heavy load his head is used as a lever, and, especially where there is a gradient, it is inclined to go up and down. If that is so, it might be perfectly possible that the horse could get through without rubbing itself, but in throwing his head up he would hit the roof. I hope we shall alter the Clause in this place, and not put our trust in the House of Lords, as the hon. Member opposite is too much inclined to do.

With every possible desire to protect the horses which work underground, I am sure the House must be very careful lest they create an untold difficulty for animal labour underground. To insist on the construction of roadways underground for horses to travel like the hon. Baronet's horses in Hyde Park is simply to prohibit at once the whole of the horse traffic that I know of—that is, for a horse to be able to throw its head up and as high as it can without touching the roof. In nine-tenths of the roadways where horses are working at present there is not room for that. Horses are very intelligent animals, and they become accustomed to stoop as the colliers do, and you will never see a colliery horse put his head up. He invariably goes with his head in a line with his body in any colliery roadway that I know unless it is some main haulage roadway. It is simply out of the question to do that. The roadways are not constructed for that purpose.

I think the case which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. Bathurst) referred to is a very real case. Anyone who has walked along a road in a mine in a bad light knows, with all the intelligence that a man has, how difficult it is to avoid striking one's head against the timbers. You put some wretched pony in this bad light drawing a heavy load of tubs, and provide a road for him to go in which is, ex hypothesi, too low for him to pass along without striking his head. I think that is an evil which ought to be, if possible, abolished. I suggest some such words as these "the possibility of striking its head against the roof and without"

Suppose the pony jumped.

Supposing it did jump, will anyone tell me that a manager should be prosecuted for an offence, because of something of that sort. Of course, you can make anything ridiculous, and I think that is an attempt to make this proposal ridiculous. I want to treat the matter in a serious way. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is familiar with the way in which these ponies work in the mines. In low roads in going in the ponies—[An HON. MEMBER: "Horses"]—well, if the horses are too tall for the road, then I think the owners ought to got smaller horses. What is provided by this Amendment is that when you are working a horse or a pony in one of these roads the dimensions of the road should be sufficiently high to allow the horse or pony to pass along without striking its head against the roof. Some hon. Members suggest that the horse is too tall for the road. Surely common humanity requires that if you have a low road you must have a low-sized pony. You must adapt your horse to the road. I cannot think that the Under-Secretary when he considers the effect of this Amendment will refuse to accept it. I propose to insert in the proposed Amendment the words "striking its head against the roof and without"

I should like to say one word with regard to my hon. and learned Friend's suggestion. There may be a little difficulty in interpreting it. Bearing in mind that the whole House is desirous of meeting the particular case to which attention has been called, I think the Amendment would read in a simpler way by leaving out the word "dimensions" altogether and substituting the word "width." It would then read, "Every road … shall be of sufficient width to allow the horse or other animal to pass without rubbing itself or its harness against the sides or the bars or props supporting the roof or sides, and of sufficient height to allow it to pass without lowering its head."

I do not know whether hon. Members who have spoken on this matter have ever been down a mine. Really the hon. Member opposite does not seem to know how a pony works in a mine. Injuries to ponies are not generally caused by striking the head against the roof. The bulk of the injuries are not sustained on the head at all; they are sustained on the sides and the shoulders. In most modern mines a skull-cap is provided for the horse. Those who are familiar with the working of mines know that the horse throws the whole of its weight on the forelegs, and, in point of fact, in practice the head, of which we have heard so much, is carried, not high, but nearly on the ground. This seems a curious thing to those who are accustomed to see horses working in the open in their natural position. When a horse goes into a mine it keeps its head near the rails all the time. There is another point to which I would direct attention. I have myself knocked my head against a roof on account of my own carelessness. Having gone along a road in a mine, I have found, on coming back, that in the interval the bars have been lowered. I remember once going along a road one way, and, on returning within three or four hours, owing to a heavy weight coming over that part, the roof had lowered, and the first intimation of this I had was when I received a thundering crack on the top of the head. Are you going to say that a mine-owner or a manager is to be liable to prosecution because a road which half-an-hour before was of sufficient dimensions happened to have lowered? All this nonsense that has been talked about the horse's head will be apparent when I state that there are cases in Wales where, in the general working of the mines, the horses are fifteen hands high. It is only in the North of England that ponies of thirteen hands and smaller are worked. All the talk about roads being sufficiently high is sheer nonsense. The proposal of the hon. Member opposite is absolutely impracticable.

I wish to corroborate what has been said by the hon. Baronet (Sir A. Markham). I wish to point out to my hon. Friends on this side of the House that the roofs are very often timber. I would ask hon. Members opposite who know what it is to be down in a pit: What on earth are you to do in such a case as has been mentioned by the hon. Baronet, where the timber falls down? Supposing before the fall a pony went along the road when it was perfectly safe, and then, when coming back a short time afterwards, hits its head—[An HON. MEMBER: "Withers"]—well, hits its head or withers, that is exactly what this Amendment means to make impossible. I do not object to the whole Clause at all, but I fully support the proposal of the Under-Secretary. I think that if hon. Members would go down a pit as often as I do—

I am much more often down pits than you are.

I do not know how my hon. Friend can possibly tell that. It may be perfectly right—I do not say it is not—but I am perfectly certain that people who are interested in collieries are just as good men as the hon. Gentleman himself. It would not pay a colliery proprietor to have roofs in such a way that a horse or pony would hit either its withers or its head. I hope the Under-Secretary will stick to his guns, and I, for one, will support him.

rose to continue the Debate.

The hon. Member has already spoken.

I only seconded the Amendment formally.

I am afraid that by so doing the Noble Lord is precluded from speaking now.

May I appeal to the Government to accept something in the nature of this Amendment? By the wording of the Clause they already try to prevent a horse rubbing itself or its harness against the side of the way or passage. All we seek is that they should also put in some words which shall ensure that the passage along which the horse is called upon to work shall be of sufficient height. What my hon. Friend opposite suggested was that there should be such a passage as will allow the horse to go along without lowering its head. Surely the Government might meet this case.

The hon. Member knows that we met him very freely on this question of the horses in the Committee. We went into it in great detail and accepted a large number of Amendments which he proposed and which the society that he represents advocated in the interests of the animals. I submit that the House should accept the suggestion of the Committee and should not occupy its time in such details as this. It is quite clear that the passage must be such that the horse must be able to go clearly through without bowing its head or shoulders, but if we are asked to raise the level of every mine so that the horse could toss its head in the air, that is really asking something that cannot be granted.

I beg to propose in Sub-section (1), after the word "haulage," to insert the words "not being a jig rope."

I beg to second the Amendment.

The Government cannot accept this Amendment, as no case has been made out for it.

I beg to propose in Sub-section (2), after the word "suitable," to insert the words "wrought iron."

As hon. Members know, the lockers are small pieces of wood or iron which are used to act as brakes and prevent the tubs running down. The mortality to ponies from that cause is very serious. Mr. Pickering, one of His Majesty's inspectors, in his evidence before the recent Commission, was asked about accident's in mines:—

"'Are they unavoidable ones'? 'Yes,' he said, 'but some are avoidable. A man may neglect his lockers, and the tub will run on to the pony and kill it. This kind of accident should not happen. But a runaway tub causes an accident which can be avoided. The mortality among these ponies is very serious indeed.'"

Mr. Butterley, asked what kind of accidents, says:—

"In the case where a horse is coming down for tubs and a locker breaks, or the horse puts its foot on the rail and slips, the weight of the tub throws him forward and breaks his leg or cripples him in some manner."

The reason is that the wooden lockers break, and to make the thing effective you have to have iron lockers. Upon that very important evidence is given by Mr. Cook, assistant under-manager in the Wath Main Colliery in Yorkshire. His evidence comes to this, that while they used wooden lockers there were very many accidents in his mines from tubs running down the ponies, but when they began to use iron lockers, there were no accidents at all.

Will you quote that?

Certainly. It is at pages 203 and 204 of the evidence.

The witness was asked the following questions by Mr. Enoch Edwards:—

"The number of ponies you have is 114?—Yes.

"The number killed, destroyed, or died in five years is 128?—Yes.

"The first one 'Scottie' was killed: corves—overpowered him—broken lockers. That is the locker you were referring to?—Yes.

"The next one is locker broke, tubs overpowered him. These are all in January. This is the 7th?—Yes."

Then Mr. Enoch Edwards said:—

"What happens is that the gradient of the road is so sharp that they must put some brake in, and they put a locker in the wheel on a piece of the road. If they do not, it runs the horse down. In some cases the locker has broken, and in this one I have just referred to they did not put the locker in."

[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Let me read on. The witness said:—

"As I said in my statement, many of them (the ponies) are killed through neglect of lockers, and sometimes they (the drivers) will say they had the lockers in and they broke. That is the reason we are having iron lockers instead of wooden ones now."

In other words, wooden lockers are liable to breakage, or the boys may say that they were broken when they were not broken. [An HON. MEMBER: "And iron lockers as well."] Let me read the witness's evidence. He said:—

"That is the reason we are having iron lockers instead of wooden ones now."

Then Mr. Wm. Abraham (Rhondda), asked:—

"But with the iron locker, the average is nearly as high as it was before?—No."

The last questions on this subject were:—

"Have you had as many accidents since you got the iron lockers?—No."

"If there was an accident it would not arise through a broken locker?—I have not known any case where an iron locker has broken. They are of sufficient strength, and above, to do the work."

This is really the material evidence on this subject, and what it amounts to is this, that if you have wooden lockers there are two objections—either they break, or the boys say that they break, in order to hide their own neglect. Then there is the very important fact that whereas there were large numbers of accidents with the wooden lockers, since the use of iron lockers, they have had no accidents at this colliery, and I would ask the House whether this is not really a case where they might lay down that there should be iron lockers. It is not as if it would involve an enormous cost to the coal-owners.

Iron lockers are cheaper and they last much longer.

I am obliged to the hon. Baronet for his information, and unless some reason is given which I have not been able to discover I shall certainly proceed with my Amendment.

I beg to Second the Amendment.

I hope the hon. Member will not press this Amendment. There was a very full discussion in Grand Committee upon this matter, and the conclusion arrived at was that the best words to insert were the words "sufficient and suitable." The reason for adopting that course was that the Royal Commission had considered that very point which the hon. and learned Member is now urging. They made no recommendation at all, and they could not have very well made a recommendation, because the expert committee who had to deal with this matter reported that while iron lockers were less liable to break, they were more liable to fly out of the wheel, and in view of that report, the Committee would not accept the proposal which was made to use iron lockers.

May I ask my hon. and learned Friend not to press the Amendment? I think the words "sufficient and suitable" cover the requirements of the case. In some instances wood is far better than iron. Iron lockers are apt to break men's fingers, and do damage of that kind.

I can speak on this subject from a practical standpoint. I have used both the wooden and the iron sprags, and I have found the iron sprags very unreliable indeed. The iron sprag is apt to slip through and not to catch on, and it is also liable to jump out when the tram drags. The wooden sprag is always reliable, except when it has been too much used and becomes tender. I think the words in the Sub-section providing that they should be "sufficient and suitable" are enough.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), paragraph (b), after the word "place" ["place where sets"], to insert the words "on an incline."

The object of this Amendment is to make quite sure that these lockers are put in where there is danger of the tubs running away. I think the words have been omitted through an error on the part of the drafting clerk, and that they should have been put in originally.

I cannot accept the Amendment. The words of the Bill are in accordance with the recommendation of the expert committee of the Royal Commission. It is not in consequence of any error of draftsmanship that the words suggested by the hon. Member opposite have not been inserted.

I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (c), after the word "roads" ["roads where the gradient"], to insert the words "or parts of roads."

The object of my Amendment is to make quite sure that these checks are put upon the tubs in the case where the average gradient may not exceed one in twenty, but there may be a stretch of road in which it does exceed one in twenty, and very serious injury might occur to the pony in consequence. At any rate, there would be an undue strain on the pony in that particular part where the gradient is more steep. I ask the Government to accept the Amendment as one in the interests of humanity.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I accept the Amendment.

I beg to move, in paragraph (c), to leave out the words "the gradient exceeds one in twenty and."

I move this in order to insert other words in a subsequent Amendment. I see no reason why the gradient should be specified as one in twenty. One in twenty-one would be just as dangerous, or even one in twenty-five or one in thirty. The real question is when ought these sprags to be provided. Surely they ought to be provided in any case where the tubs have a tendency to run down. I want to put it in general terms, and personally I see no reason why the gradient should be limited.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I cannot accept the suggestion. I do not know that there is any material difference between the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman and the view we entertain. It is considered necessary and desirable that we should have some definite standard of inclination. That has been fixed at one in twenty, and is more satisfactory than to adopt indefinite language as suggested.

Would the hon. and learned Gentleman have any objection to the words of my second Amendment following the words now in the Clause?

I beg to move, in paragraph (c), after the word "power," to insert the words "or the gradient is such as to cause the tub, or set of tubs, to run down, or tend to run down, on the animal engaged in hauling."

We have already a fixed standard, and it would be inadvisable to accept this proposal. In the absence of any scientific evidence that a margin of safety has not been provided for, I do not think there is any necessity for the Amendment.

I would ask the Government to accept this Amendment,

I hope also that the Government will accept the Amendment. It is quite impossible to say that anything less than one in twenty is absolutely safe. If there is danger it should be provided for, and I think the Amendment is a very reasonable one.

Really, does anybody suggest that in a gradient of less than one in twenty injury is done? I do not see any objection to the words myself, but they are wholly unnecessary.

The hon. Baronet knows that very often trucks run down on a particular incline, and you cannot lay down an absolutely specific degree of inclination beyond which nothing will happen.

In all railway companies and in all sidings there is a fixed gradient laid down by the railway companies, and on that gradient the whole of the traffic is worked.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (4) (c), to leave out the words "over chains."

I am told that when going round a curve these chains might get tight and knock persons over.

I beg to second the Amendment.

We cannot accept this Amendment. The paragraph refers to "over chains, bridle chains, or other suitable appliances," and it would not do to alter it in the way proposed.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (6), after the word "or," to insert the words "to any such mines worked under similar conditions in any other district, or to the mines."

The Amendment simply provides that where there are mines similar to those in the Cleveland district, the same provision shall apply.

I beg to second the Amendment.

A later Amendment of the Government, I think, covers the position which the hon. and learned Gentleman has put before the House, and I would ask him therefore not to press his Amendment.

I did not notice the Amendment, and therefore I beg to withdraw the one I moved.

I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2). In doing so I want the Committee not to think for a moment that I am in any way an expert in coal mining. I merely move this matter from the standpoint of commonsense. It has been said to-day by hon. Members on both sides of the House that we are desirous of safeguarding employment in mines in every way we possibly can. That I think is right. At the same time, in doing so, we ought not to damage other interests. If this particular Sub-section is passed we are damaging to a great extent, almost vitally, the great electrical interest of this country, in which £15,000,000 is invested. The Sub-section says that where the inflammable gas in the air currents exceeds ½ per cent. or upwards, the use of electricity shall at once be discontinued in such place or part of such ventilating district where the inflammable gas exists till the air current is clear of the same or shall not exceed ½ per cent. Last night it was stated distinctly, I think from the Government Benches, that ½ per cent. was an amount which could not be detected.

I moved an Amendment in Grand Committee, and lower down on the Paper the hon. Member will see that I have put down an Amendment striking out the "one-half per cent. or upwards," and making it "one and a quarter."

Well, then, I trust that the hon. Baronet will second my Amendment. In support of my point, let me quote the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Use of Electricity in Mines, which was only printed this year—a Commission appointed apparently by the Home Secretary in 1909. If Members would read that Report I am sure that they would bring their commonsense to bear, and they will at once have this Clause deleted. Just let me quote one or two observations from that Report:—

"Experience has shown that the proper use of electricity cannot be regarded as inherently unsafe, and that it possesses some characteristics which are of great advantage in underground conditions, but having regard to the change in the prevailing system of distribution and to the natural development of apparatus, the Committee is of opinion that the existing rules require revision. The revised code of rules, hereafter referred to as 'the revised rules,' is attached to this Report as Appendix A."

The Committee also say:—

"The feeling against the use of electricity in mines which found expression in some parts of the country was largely based, the Committee considers, either upon a vague fear due to lack of knowledge, or upon experience of the behaviour of badly constructed or maintained apparatus. The Committee knows of no place below ground in which electricity is in use to-day where both kinds of accident would not be avoided if the best present-day practice as regards construction and maintenance were complied with."

The Committee continue:—

"The daily or frequent occurrence of inflammable gas in any place in quantity detectable by the ordinary safety lamp in use at the mine would make that place one to which prohibition should apply …."

And the Committee are of opinion that:

"On the other hand, prohibition is not required where gas is seldom found, or where from experience in the neighbourhood and from all the evidence available it is likely to be of rare occurrence: provided good work and proper maintenance are insured so as to obviate as far as is practicable the risk of open sparking. In these circumstances danger only arises in the extremely unlikely event of the coincidence of three things, namely (i.) the presence of gas or of a dense cloud of coal dust, (ii.) such a failure of apparatus as would cause open sparking, and (iii.) failure of the officials or workmen to observe the rules. In such places, namely, where the use of electricity is not prohibited, but where there is the possibility of the occurrence of gas or of a dense cloud of coal dust, certain additional precautions are called for by the revised rules."

That does not bear out the contention of Sub-section (2) of Clause 59. In the appendix they make certain recommendations, and in rule 15, page 32, of the Report, they make certain suggestions for the safeguarding of electricity in mines. They say:—

"In any part of a mine in which inflammable gas, although not normally present, may occur in quantity sufficient to be indicative of danger, the following additional rules shall be observed:—"

They lay down rules stating that electric lamps should be enclosed and so on, and in paragraph 5, they point out:—

"A safety lamp shall be provided and used with each motor when working, and should any indication of firedamp appear from such safety lamp, the person appointed to work the motor shall forthwith cut off the pressure therefrom and report the matter to a deputy or over-man or other official."

All these reports and recommendations would indicate that this Sub-section is unnecessary, but apart from all that it is absolutely redundant. In the first Sub-section of Clause 59 you set up certain inspectors, and it is provided in Clauses 97 to 100 that these inspectors are to be selected with great care. For instance, in Monmouthshire they are to be able to speak the Welsh language. I do not know whether, in Scottish mines worked by Polish labour, the inspectors will be expected to be able to speak Yiddish and Polish. These inspectors, by Sub-section (4) of Clause 98, are given almost universal powers—powers quite as great as those of the Insurance Commissioners under the Insurance Bill. If you are going to take power to appoint these practical men to watch over everything connected with the mine and the safety of the men, surely the Sub-section which I moved to omit is absolutely redundant. If these inspectors are worth their salt, they will see that where electricity is used there will be no danger, and, that being so, this Sub-section is quite unnecessary.

I beg to second the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend, not that in my Constituency we have any mines or pits to trouble us, but we have a large body of men dependent upon electrical works, and I have had most urgent representations from them pointing out that this Sub-section would be absolutely detrimental to their interests, to the interests of those who make their living in connection with the electrical works in my Constituency. It would involve about £10,000 a year loss in wages, and therefore I desire and hope that the Amendment of my hon. Friend will receive consideration.

We have had many curious Amendments moved from time to time in this House, but seldom have we had one in support of which so little argument has been used. The argument of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment was that something like fifteen millions of money was invested in electrical industries in this country, and the last speaker told us that £10,000 in wages—I do not know whether it is per week or per annum—would be lost in his constituency. Apparently, he thinks that these works are to be allowed to manufacture machinery for mines quite irrespective of what may happen from such machinery in the mines. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but that was his argument.

Both the Mover of the Amendment and myself expressed the belief that this Sub-section was unnecessary and redundant.

That is what remains to be seen. The House has already agreed that where naked lights are used in the mines the percentage of gas must not exceed 1¼. There is no such thing in the market as a gas-tight motor. I am speaking from experience. There is not a single motor working in any mine with which I am engaged in which there is any gas present. In any mine with which I am associated, if a motor was taken in where gas was in any quantities, the manager of that mine would very soon cease to occupy his position. The first Departmental Committee was appointed in 1903 by the late Lord Ritchie to inquire into the use of electricity, and to safeguard the use of electricity in mines. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Fenwick) sat upon that Committee together with representatives of the electrical trade, the owners of mines and Government inspectors, and a most valuable Report was issued in 1904, and if hon. Members will turn to the Report of that Committee they will find that what I am advocating now is precisely what that Committee stated. But owing to the fact of these rules going to arbitration, they were so utterly mutilated and destroyed that a further Departmental Committee was set up last year and reported this year. The Departmental Committee of which my right hon. Friend was a member stated, that in itself electricity constituted no inherent danger, but at the same time that where gas was present the use of electricity should not be allowed. There is no question about it, there has not yet been a single motor constructed which is gas-tight. No doubt they are sold on the market as such. When a motor starts to work, a heat temperature arises in the motor, and the heat is driven out of the motor along the shaft journals and comes out through the journals into the atmosphere of the mine. When the temperature of the motor again cools the motor breathes in the gas through the journals and along the shaft into the motor itself. According to the discussions in the electrical and technical institutes all the electrical engineers are agreed that a gas-tight motor has not been discovered. A motor has been invented in Germany and is used in German mines, in which when the gas gets inside the motors the explosion takes place inside and is not communicated to the outside atmosphere.

The recommendation of the Committee with regard to motors was that all motors should be so constructed that the rubbing contact should be so arranged as to prevent open sparks.

I do not think anyone has had more trouble with the Home Office than I have on this question of electricity, and I know that there is no such thing on the market to-day as a gas-tight motor. If you are going to say that naked lights shall not be used in a mine where there is more than 1¼ per cent. of fire-damp, what is the use of taking into that mine a motor where you are bound sooner or later to cause danger owing to numerous causes connected with the use of electricity, the conditions of which are so absolutely different from what they are on the surface that you never can make the same provision for preventing open sparking as you can on the surface. In this Clause you are protecting the lives and giving additional security against something which the men throughout the country hardly without exception regard as the most dangerous thing introduced into mines for many years. What is the view of the inspectors? Of course I am not entitled to say in this House what an inspector has personally said to me, unless the information has been publicly given, but I will say that every inspector of mines to-day regards the advent of electricity into mines with the greatest amount of alarm, and that view is shared by all the men themselves. With regard to the owners, I am associated in my daily life with this industry, and I have not yet met a single owner in any part of the United Kingdom who wants to work a motor where a mixture of gas is present. Does the hon. Member opposite seriously ask that motors should be allowed to work in mines where there is a mixture of gas?

Yes, for lighting mines.

That matter has already been dealt with, and it has nothing to do with this question. The reason I ask the Committee to accept the Bill as it is drawn is that we discussed this question at enormous length in Committee, and it was only opposed by the electrical industry, who do not know what they are talking about so far as the conditions in mines are concerned. No sane manager of a mine would introduce what might at anytime cause open sparking. No manager desires to take that risk. But there are certain madmen who wish to take electricity into mines and use motors in mines where gas is present. There was a very serious explosion not very long ago, where it was proved in evidence that 2 or 3 per cent. of gas was present, and that electric coal-cutters were actually being used there. Surely the House will not sanction the using of an agency of such great danger in any part of a mine where you are nearly reaching the point of an explosive mixture, because if you have 3 per cent. of gas it may rapidly become 6 per cent. I have taken a deep interest for the last ten years in this subject, and a much deeper interest than any other hon. Member of this House. I was at first regarded as a fanatic when I told the Home Office and the Departmental Committee that I was perfectly convinced unless something was done in regard to the use of electricity that we should some day have one of those terrible calamities which would hurl hundreds of men to their death.

I am not going to mention specific cases, but I think one of the great calamities which has recently taken place in this country was due to electricity. Therefore I ask the House, with all the emphasis I can possibly use, not to delete this Clause, which I am sure will be an additional safeguard to an industry into which this new danger has been imported. Those who supported the use of electricity in mines in the early days had to take the risk because we did not understand the problem, but now it is so well-known that the so-called unknown dangers can be properly guarded against by regulations. In addition, I want Parliament to set up a definite standard above which motors shall not be allowed to be used in mines. I hope the House will reject this Amendment, and thus enable this industry to carry on its operations, not as the representatives of the miners ask, namely, that the use of electricity should be abolished altogether, but allow it to be used only under such conditions where a naked light in mines is used at the present time.

I have had a communication from certain electrical manufacturers, and I replied that I did not sufficiently understand what would be the danger point in a mine, and that I had made up my mind not to pledge myself until I had heard the discussion in the House of Commons. I think that is a reasonable attitude to take up. I do not quite agree with the hon. Baronet who has just spoken when he says, that all those who use motors and other electrical apparatus are madmen.

I said where gas is present.

There can be no doubt the hon. Baronet has had great experience in mines, and with regard to what may be regarded as safe and what may be regarded as dangerous. I understand the hon. Baronet later on proposes to alter the percentage from 2½ to some larger figure. I am almost inclined to think, after listening to the arguments, there is a great deal to be said against the use of electricity in parts of mines where there is a certain percentage of gas. Therefore, there is a great deal to be said against the withdrawal of the Clause. I can quite understand electrical manufacturers rather object to anything which will curtail their business, but what we have to consider is not the advantage of a particular industry, but whether injury may accrue or arise to people working in the mines. Subject to what the Under-Secretary may say, I have rather come to the conclusion it would not be safe to delete the Sub-section.

I want to say, on behalf of the workmen that they may differ on many things, but although there are over a million of them there is no difference of opinion with regard to this question, which has been fully debated at a national conference. The greatest dread amongst miners to-day is of electricity being introduced into the mine at all. When you are going deeper depths, and when you are having this danger to contend with, there is no wonder at the miners being alarmed. That alarm has been increased and intensified by two catastrophes. My hon. Friend the Member for one of the Divisions of Durham, myself, and two others attended an inquiry, which lasted over six days, where over 160 men were killed through an explosion, and, if the Chief Inspector of Mines for England to-day could give his opinion with regard to it, I dare venture to say he would agree with the conclusion to which we came, and to which one of the greatest electricians in this country came, that the explosion at West Stanley, in Durham, was the result of electricity. We have had something to do at some places to keep the men at work at all where they have been introducing these electrical machines. At one colliery in my own county the men complained that the electrical coal-cutting machines were giving off sparks and flames. I called the attention of the inspector, Mr. Stokes, to it, and he went to the mine and found the men's statement was quite correct. There are thousands and tens of thousands of respectable and careful men whose eyes are upon the Government in this matter. The safety of our men is more important than that you should have electrical cutting machines or electricity introduced in mines under dangerous conditions. Give us all the safeguards you can and give the men the assurance that when they go down the mine they are going to be protected by the power of the law and that their lives shall not be destroyed.

I am sure the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment did not intend to convey the impression that on such a Bill as this we should pay any attention whatever to the demands of the electrical industry. Our sole concern is with the safety of the mine, and, if we are quite convinced that some such provision as this is necessary in the interests of the safety of the mines, the electrical industry will have to adapt itself to that limitation. I am sure anyone who supported this Motion would agree with that general statement. I cannot accept the omission of this Sub-section, because from all the evidence I have been able to obtain, both before the Committee decided on this Sub-section and in my interviews with my divisional inspectors and others since, they all maintain the general position which the hon. Baronet the Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham) has put so ably to the House, that, with the best provision in the world, there is danger where you have electricity of producing what would be similar to a naked light, especially in a coal mine.

Hon. Members will remember the disaster some years ago where, although it was proved electricity had nothing to do with it, there was evidence to show the coal-cutting machine was giving off sparks in gas. Certainly, until some much more elaborate possibilities are before the electrical industry than at the present time, I think we ought clearly to lay down at least the same standard for working electrical machines in a mine as we have for the use of the naked light in a mine. That, I understand, is the effect of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet. It may be said we are in a sense providing for this in our regulations. We are providing new and drastic regulations which, I am glad to say, will be accepted by the coal-owners without arbitration, and certainly in those regulations we do very largely apply the standard which we are now putting into a general Sub-section. Such rules provide that the pressure shall be cut off from any motor when the safety lamp shows any indication of the presence of fire-damp. That raises an old controversy as to what the indication of fire-damp is in a safety lamp. It has been a very fruitful subject of controversy, and even of legal prosecution. I suggest it would be far better if we adopted the standard of the withdrawal of the men. Where we cannot use naked lights the mines should be cut off from the electrical machinery. It should not be allowed to be worked until the district affected is free of gas. I do not think that that is an extravagant demand to make on the users of electrical machines. I would suggest that the Amendment be withdrawn.

I think there is a very much greater measure of agreement on this matter than would appear on the face of it. In Committee this was moved, and the Government opposed it. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, who has now moved the omission, will withdraw his Amendment in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Mansfield Division. I quite understand the point the hon. Baronet has made. He told us that he desires that the use of electricity in mines should be conducted under absolute conditions of safety from the point of view of all concerned. But the point we are dealing with at the present moment would make it almost impossible to use electricity in a mine at all. We know perfectly well that conditions differ in dry and dusty mines as against damp mines. Therefore it is far more important that matters of this description should be dealt with by regulations. Sub-section (4) provides for such regulations, and I certainly should have thought the matter could be dealt with better by regulations than by Act of Parliament. I put this forward as a solution of the difficulty, which would be far more satisfactory than the present proposal.

I hope my hon. Friend will be induced to withdraw this Amendment. Let us at any rate be on the safe side, whatever may be the imperfection of modern conditions. Why should we have this additional percentage of danger introduced into our mines? It has been said that it is the duty of the inspectors to see that the machinery is in perfect working order, so that no danger may arise, but I would submit that it is quite possible for machinery to get out of gear during the intervals between the visits of the inspectors, and the result under this proposal would be that the men working in the mine would be liable to disaster. I earnestly hope that my hon. Friend will see fit to withdraw his Amendment. We want to make sure, as far as possible, of the safety of the lives of the miners. We are not so much concerned with the prosperity of the electrical engineering industry. We ought not to introduce a new element of risk into our mines—an element which will cause terrible uneasiness and a lack of confidence among the miners, together with a fear of appalling disaster.

I want to know exactly what are the intentions of the Government. The Under-Secretary, in his closing observations, indicated that there was a willingness on the part of the Government to accept the proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Mansfield Division. If that is so, I shall not complain; I am one of those who think that this Sub-section might well have been left out of the Bill, and dealt with by special rules. If we had adopted that course we could from time to time have varied the regulations relating to the use of electricity in mines without being compelled to come to Parliament for legislative sanction. Speaking as a practical miner, I believe that would have been the best course to have adopted. While I am not suggesting that the users of electricity should be placed in a worse position than those who are using naked lights, I certainly do suggest that they should be put into practically the same position, and I shall not object to the course suggested by the Under-Secretary being taken. I have a very strong preference indeed, on my own account, for wishing that this Sub-section should be left out of the Bill altogether, and that the matter should be dealt with by special rules rather than that we should be compelled, in the event of any alteration being desirable in the conditions governing the use of electricity in mines, to come back to the House of Commons for further instructions. I shall certainly support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.

I am not opposing this with any desire to prejudicially affect the electrical engineering industry. But there are two sides to every question. We should not desire to put any Clause into the Bill which would unduly interfere with the working of the mine. By putting this particular Clause into the Bill and not allowing the matter to be settled by regulations, we may at once stop work in a mine where the work is dependent on the light. In a very large number of mines at the present time electricity is used for the purposes of lighting, and we have been given to understand that incandescent lamps can be safely used therein. We do not wish to put anything into the Act which would change that situation and stop the work in an unnecessary manner. It appears to me that all this can be very well provided for toy regulations. I cannot understand how it is that the attitude of the Government has changed since we were in Committee on this Bill. It appears to me there are plenty of safeguards in this Clause without this particular Subsection. Sub-section (1) provides that,

"Electricity shall not be used in any part of a mine where, on account of the risk of explosion of gas or coal dust, the use of electricity would be dangerous to life."

Then we have arbitration provided for in case the mine-owner does not agree with the inspector. It is also laid down that the use of electricity shall stop until a decision is arrived at.

May I point out that in all cases where the Home Office has gone to arbitration, especially in regard to mines where explosions are continually occurring, the Home Office have always been beaten.

I would point out that Sub-section (3) lays down that electricity shall not be used until the arbitration is over and we must assume that the arbitrator in these cases has fairly heard the evidence of each party and come to a just conclusion. Sub-section (4) says that the use of electricity in any mine shall be subject to the general regulations under this Act. It has already been pointed out that people are all the time exercising their brains to try and arrive at fresh inventions and to improve electricity, and if we pass this particular Sub-section as it stands it will not enable us to make the improvements more easy to be used in mines without another Act of Parliament or an Amendment to this Bill. It is much better that this sort of thing should be arranged by regulations than by a strict Clause in a Bill.

One of the difficulties we have to contend with when one has no technical knowledge of these matters is that we have to be guarded by those who have thorough knowledge of the circumstances. When it comes to a Division the responsibility rests upon us of taking what we believe to be the really safe course. In such circumstances one has a tendency to vote in such a sense as shall be absolutely safe. The statement of the Under-Secretary rather confuses the issue so far as men like myself are concerned. He lays down the proposition that electricity shall not be used except under conditions in which it is not dangerous to use a naked lamp. Yesterday it was clearly shown that it was not safe to have naked lamps in almost every mine. Exceptional conditions must obtain before a naked light can safely be used, yet the Under-Secretary lays down the proposition that electricity should not be used excepting where a naked lamp can safely be used. I should like to ask the Under-Secretary what would happen in the case of electrically driven fans in mines? What is to happen when the electricity is withdrawn and the fans are at a standstill?

Under the Bill the main ventilating fan is bound to be on the surface.

That answer is satisfactory and comprehensive. I was not aware that the electrically driven fans were only used above the surface. The Sub-section the Government propose to retain recites that the amount of inflammable gas is not to exceed½per cent. or upwards. I do not know why the words "or upwards" are necessary. If it exceeds½per cent. it must be upwards. It is stated that the½per cent. is the condition obtaining at present in connection with naked lamps. I understand that naked lamps are used when there is a much greater volume of gas. I should like to have some guidance on these points. As to the difficulty of adapting electrical appliances to the altered conditions proposed by the Bill, surely the electrical inventors can find some way of making this apparatus absolutely safe. It is intolerable that when working on the face an electrically driven machine should be throwing off sparks into dust, and possibly gas. From what we know of electrical engineers, I should think they would fasten upon this difficulty and succeed in clearing it up. If the Under-Secretary will make the point clear as to what he means in connection with the½per cent. I shall be very grateful.

The suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Hickman) as to the change in the Bill since it left Committee is rather unreasonable. I know from some experience that there is no Member in this House engaged in the coal industry who is more humane and more desirous of avoiding accidents, and who goes a longer way to accomplishing it than the hon. and gallant Member himself. The desire of the Committee was that this matter should be looked at from the point of view that you were dealing with a subject which, as yet, is not thoroughly understood, and that while you were dealing with it it is well to keep fairly on the safe side. Those of us who voted for the Sub-section in Committee did so because we believed we were taking the safe course, even against the advice of the Government at that time. I am pleased that the Government have hesitated to pursue the course they took before the Committee. That is in harmony with what should be the correct position of the Government where human life is at stake, as it is in this case. The recent accidents, and there have been several alarming accidents, while they have shaken the faith of engineers and colliery owners and the general public in electricity, have struck terror into the colliers themselves. I have presided over a large gathering or two in relation to this Bill, and this was discussed. It is no use belittling this question. These men have had fathers, brothers and relations slain in large numbers, and when they see this electricity being applied at the coal face you can scarcely wonder that they regard it with horror. I am satisfied that it is the desire of every Member of the House to guard against these unforeseen dangers, and until electricity is better understood the Government will do well to pause and to make regulations. At present the most up-to-date electricians are not sanguine that you are safe in going forward, and there is a very large volume of opinion that electricity ought not to be worked at the face, and I agree that it is the act of a madman to put it in any pit where gas is given off. I regret that there is a suggestion that the percentage of gas should be raised. I know there is no test as yet and I am not going to stand in the way of the Amendment, because it is preferred at any rate to the course suggested by my hon. Friend opposite in deleting this Clause, because, after all, however we may measure these questions inside this House, the great mass of men who are called upon to get their living under these circumstances do not feel as Members of Parliament feel as we sit here; but they feel that there is a danger, and they dread it, because this is a question which is not thoroughly understood, and I think the House will do well to pause before inflicting on them what they regard so suspiciously.

I agree that the use of electricity is very dangerous. As a general rule I am not in favour of referring the decision of questions of this sort to the Home Office, preferring rules to be laid down by Parliament; but I think this is an exceptional case. I think the question of the use of electricity is in such a transition state that in this case it is much better to leave it to regulations to be made from time to time.

As the Home Secretary has indicated that he will accept the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, I withdraw my Amendment.

I beg to move, to leave out the words "one-half" ["one-half per cent. or upwards"], and to insert instead thereof the words "one and one-quarter."

The object of the Amendment is to put electricity on the same level as naked lights. I put it down originally, having no knowledge of mining, very tentatively and diffidently, but I am fortified by seeing that one who has such expert knowledge as the hon. Baronet (Sir A. Markham) has put down a similar Amendment. I would not have moved it had I not been assured beforehand that the question of risk with regard to electricity is precisely the same as the risk with regard to naked lights, and under these circumstances I cannot see why the use of electricity should be penalised in any way as compared with the use of naked lights.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to move, after the word "throughout" ["are naturally wet throughout"], to insert the words, "or unless it is a mine in which, and in the district of which, inflammable gas is wholly unknown."

I believe I am correct in stating that the only mines in England in which inflammable gas is unknown are the mines situated in the Forest of Dean. I believe again I am correct in stating, though on this point I am not quite certain, that the mines in the Forest of Dean are small mines run by small people, and do not employ a very large number of men in each mine. It would not be the desire of the House to impose upon those mine-owners and miners burdens which are unnecessary. Therefore if I can prove, as I shall endeavour to do, that this Amendment would not involve any great opposition, I think the House will be inclined to accept the Amendment. I am informed that the mine-owners and the miners in the district have lately come to an understanding to the effect that they desire these words inserted in the Bill. I do not think there is a dissentient voice among the men employed or the employers upon this question in the district. I understand that the reasons in favour of this Amendment are that there is an entire absence of explosive gas in all the mines in the Forest of Dean, and that one of the greatest dangers in connection with explosions—that arising from coal dust—is eliminated. I believe that the seams in the district are very hard, and that there is little or no coal dust even at the coal faces. The dust found in the pits is largely composed of shale. If one looks at the Bill, one sees that the question of dust is a very important one in this matter. Clause 61, Sub-section (4), says,

"Such systematic steps, either by way of watering or otherwise, as may be laid down by the regulations of the mine shall be taken to prevent explosions of coal dust occurring or being carried along the roads."

Sub-section (5) says,

"The roads shall be examined daily and a report (to be recorded in a book kept at the mine for the purpose) made on their condition as to coal dust and on the steps taken to mitigate danger arising therefrom."

4.0 P.M.

Therefore, the chief danger contemplated in relation to explosions arises from coal-dust, but, as I have pointed out, the dust in the roadways in the mines in the Forest of Dean consists largely of shale. A witness who was examined before the Royal Commission stated in answer to a question that, on instructions from the Home Office tests of coal dust were made by His Majesty's Inspector of Mines, the samples of dust being collected from a number of seams in the respective mining districts. The experiments made with dust from the Forest of Dean resulted in no explosion whatever being obtained. The experiments proved that in that district the main constituents of the dust came from shale. I have come to the almost irresistible conclusion that there are no arguments against the Amendment which I have brought forward. If hon. Gentlemen oppose the Amendment, they will have to show that there are no mines where inflammable gas is unknown. At any rate, within no reasonable time, say the last ten or twenty years, no such thing as inflammable gas has been found in these mines. I confidently hope that the Under-Secretary, who has shown a conciliatory disposition during the discussions of this Bill, will accept the Amendment.

I rise to second the Amendment. I have received authority from my Forest of Dean constituents in the shape of a resolution passed at a joint conference between the masters and the men to say that they are of one mind in urging me to ask the Government to give them the advantage of this Amendment. In the Forest of Dean coal pits, inflammable gas has never been discovered, and there is not a single pit in the whole district which at the present time contains a single vestige of the presence of inflammable gas. During the recess I made it my business to go into as many pits as I could, and I was careful to make an examination of the coal dusts found in the various workings. I naturally looked for coal dust where you would expect the lightest dust to accumulate—that is, up against the roof and on the timbers, and I am quite sure it would be impossible to manufacture anything in the nature of an explosion with dust of the kind that was found. In the Forest of Dean we can claim that there is no such thing as inflammable gas, and that it is quite impossible to discover coal dust of such a nature as to cause explosions. I hope that the Under-Secretary will grant this concession.

I regret that the Government is unable to accept the Amendment so cogently and ably proposed by the hon. Baronet, whom I can congratulate respectfully on his study of the subject. We do not say that inflammable gas of necessity is dangerous in mines where inflammable gas is unknown, but we say beyond all shadow of doubt that it is proved that coal dust alone is sufficient to cause an explosion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shale."] Shale may mitigate it. I learned from the chief inspector lately that he has had experiments carried out in connection with the very mine which the hon. Baronet is chiefly concerned, and the results show that dust of freshly crushed coal from that field is of a highly ignitable quality. The Royal Commission is conclusive on this point. The Report says:

"The witnesses who included those best qualified from scientific or practical experience to speak on the question, were generally agreed that coal dust is liable to explode, with or without the presence of fire-damp, in the condition at present to be found in most coal mines of the country."

Those who have been following this subject will remember a very remarkable instance of an explosion in 1908 in a Somersetshire colliery where inflammable gas was never present, and where none was discovered on investigation. We are more and more coming to see that the real danger in mines is far more due to the presence of coal dust than to the presence of gas. In order somewhat to mitigate the harshness of this verdict to my hon. Friend, I will point out that the terms of Clause 61 are sufficiently wide to cover any adjustments that may be necessary. Sub-clause (4) gives power to make regulations, and no doubt they will demand a more stringent clearing of coal dust in dusty mines than in any others; but we cannot part with the general provision.