not to pay. Under these circumstances, was secured, the police thrust themI am told that the managers of the sys-selves into the midst of the crowd in tem called the Plan of Campaign in Ire- wedge form. I did not understand land stepped in to the rescue. The what the proceeding meant until, a few tenantry had for years paid no rent, and minutes after, I was told a Government the managers of the Plan of Campaign reporter was there amongst them. Sir, stepped in, and calculated the rent less the police wedged themselves into the 20 per cent; and I am now told that crowd until the head of the wedge the rent is ready to be paid to that party was as near to the waggonette as I who can claim a right to it. Now, Sir, am to the reporters in this House, it is for the maintenance of such a and the reporter who was with them situation as this that a semi-military might then have heard every word police force, and that the soldiers of which was spoken from the brake or whom we have heard to-day, are sup- waggonette. Up to this time there was no ported. The most remarkable point violent resistance from the crowd whatabout it is this-that the people of Great ever. The force then retired outside Britain have for generations past been the crowd and joined a larger body of foolish enough to pay for the main- police. Then with the larger body they tenance of such a system. For my own returned to the crowd, and immediately part, I decline any longer to remain a upon reaching the edge of the crowd party to such a state of affairs without struck at the horses which were ranged protest. For the maintenance of the on the outside, and I saw a sword present state of affairs the people of bayonet drawn by one of the police. Great Britain are taxed, free speech is Immediately afterwards I saw a horse forbidden, public meeting is prohibited, rear and the rider of that horse struck and the people are batoned and shot. I by the batons of the police. The horses went to Ireland with the object of were thrown into confusion, and the persuading the people of that country police struck right and left at the unthat it was their duty, at this stage, resisting crowd. Sir, up to this point to be calm. I wished to assure them not a stone was thrown, and not a blow that victory was in sight, and that they was struck. It seemed to me an utterly would very shortly have the right to wanton and unprovoked attack on manage their own affairs. I wished to peaceable and quiet set of people. No tell them that the Party which sits upon doubt, the Government will credit the the Treasury Bench now was discredited stories they have received from their in the eyes of the people of England, instruments in Ireland; but I have very and was very certain soon to fall. On little doubt that most people in reach approaching Mitchelstown ᎳᎾ were of my voice will believe that I am accompanied, as the hon. Member for speaking the truth. The people were East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has stated, by then fired upon, as I believe, without any a number of independent witnesses. legal orders. The right hon. Gentleman The hon. Member for East Mayo has the Chief Secretary for Ireland did not mentioned the names of two. They are tell us who gave the orders; he slurred unwilling to give evidence unless sum- the question over. I should like to hear moned, for the reason that they occupy from some right hon. Gentleman in official positions; but I am not aware authority who gave the order to the that the Government has as yet asked police. As I understand the matter, the for any independent evidence. Members Resident Magistrate was the man who of the Government tell us they ap- was bound to give such order if it were proach this subject with some reserve. to be given legally. That gentleman, I Well, Sir, I do not consider that any believe, was not at hand and did not reserve on my part is necessary, for the give the order. The County Inspector, reason that I am not a Judge, but only Colonel Brownrigg, was in the basea witness. On approaching Mitchels- ment of the police barracks. The firing town we were met by a crowd of took place from the floor above, and I people, orderly in the extreme, and as believe, from that circumstance, that good-humoured as any set of people Colonel Brownrigg did not give the I ever saw in my life. The meeting order to the police to fire. For the was formed, perfect quiet was obtained, satisfaction of the House and for the and at the moment that perfect quiet satisfaction of the country I beg the Go a vernment to say who gave the order to the police to fire. Mr. Speaker, this Government is above all things a Government of law and order, and yet it is not very long ago that a constable who led an attack upon a public meeting at Youghal was convicted by a Coroner's jury of wilful murder; but that constable, whatever his rank may be, has not yet been brought to trial, and, I believe, never will be. I believe that this is a very common occurrence, and one which does not surprise the Irish people. I ask the Government whether they will give us a Return of all the police who have been convicted of murder during the last 10 years by Coroners' juries, how many have been arrested, and how many have been brought to trial, so that all doubt as to this matter may be set at rest? Yet it is this Government, which is absolutely flouting the law, which asks us to support it in the execution of the Crimes Act. That Act, Sir, I believe is rightly named the Crimes Act; it appears to me from what I saw at Mitchelstown to be an Act for the legislation of murder. The Government have by that Act prohibited the combination known as the National League; but they have not interfered with the combination known as the Irish Loyal and Patriotic League. They have not interfered with combination in the case of the landlords. The Government have a terrible horror of intimidation. I should like to tell the House a little story on this point. Two years ago the Diocesan Synod met at Cork, and the Bishop invited the clergy to meet in private at his palace. The Bishop announced from the chair that he had joined the Cork Defence Union, and he invited the clergy to do the same. The hon. Gentleman, whom I see opposite, the Member for South Hunts (Mr. Smith-Barry), acted as secretary to the meeting, and handed out cards of membership. I should like the House to permit me to describe the position of these clergymen. Their incomes depend very largely on what is collected in their localities. I give as an instance the case of one Protestant clergyman in the County of Cork; he is bound to collect £134 a-year from the locality in order that he may obtain £250 from the central fund. Anything less than £134 a-year entitles him only to 30s. from the central fund to every £1 he collects in the locality, so that if he only gets £10 from the locality he receives £15 from the central fund, and his total income is £25 a-year. Thus it seems to me that the clergy at this Synod were pressed on the one hand by their right rev. Father in God, and on the other hand by their purse-bearer. Can any intimidation be more intolerable than this? I attended a large meeting in Dublin, and I saw there an hon. Member of this House (Mr. W. O'Brien). I may say he was in evening dress, for it is a significant thing. I am told that swallow tail-coats are becoming more common in the Nationalist ranks, not only here, but in America. I saw that hon. Gentleman confronted by 5,000 men and women who were there to express their admiration, their respect, and their love for him. I saw him supported by the chief dignitary of his Church, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin; but that hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. O'Brien) is to-day, I suppose, regarded as a felon. Now, that hon. Member declared to me that in prison he would refuse to salute the warders, would refuse to turn his face to the wall when visitors came, would refuse to associate with his fellowprisoners, the lowest of the low, and would refuse to carry out his own excrements from his cell. Well, Sir, the Government know the punishment for these breaches of discipline. I understand it is solitary confinement. Now, the House knows well that the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) is a man of fragile frame, and my only fear is that the punishment may kill him. I dare the Government to try to compel him to submit to their rules. Now, let me say, in conclusion, that my work in Ireland was interrupted by what I saw in Mitchelstown. If hon. Gentlemen opposite think I was wrong in going to Ireland with the object of striving to keep the people calm they are welcome to their opinion-I intend to go back to Ireland and to continue my work. I believe, Sir, that if I encourage the people of Ireland under the provocations they have received, if I encourage them in spite of all that provocation to maintain what I believe, and what they believe, to be their legal rights, I shall be acting in a way that will earn the reward I seek-the approbation of my fellow-countrymen. Question put, and agreed to. Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) Clauses 1, 2, and 3, severally agreed to. Clause 4 (Treasury may, in certain cases of exigency, authorize expenditure unprovided for; provided that the aggregate grants for the Navy Services and for the Army Services respectively be not exceeded). MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne): Mr. Courtney, I beg to move that you do now report Progress. Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."-(Mr. Conybeare.) The Committee divided:-Ayes 61; Noes 229: Majority 168.-(Div. List, No. 478.) Clause agreed to. Remaining Clauses agreed to. Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow. COAL MINES REGULATION BILL. CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS. Lords' Amendments, as far as page 4, line 14, agreed to. Amendment, in page 5, to leave out "twenty," and insert "thirty," read a second time. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."(Mr. Secretary Matthews.) MR. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck): Surely the Home Secretary will give the House some explanation why he accepts this Amendment. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.) was understood to say that representations had reached him from various quarters to the effect that the limit had been somewhat too closely drawn. MR. FENWICK: Hon. Gentlemen will remember that it was the Home Secretary who suggested the insertion of "twenty" as a compromise. MR. MATTHEWS: No, no! MR. FENWICK: Anyhow, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that this is a matter of very great importance to the miners of the United Kingdom. I am sure he must be aware that consider able feeling exists among the mining community upon this question. It is a matter which we have been agitating upon since the Mines Regulation Act, 1872, and considerable importance is attached to this subject by the mining community. I certainly hope that the Home Secretary will not move to agree with the Lords on a question of such vital importance, unless the Government intend that the whole Bill shall be reconsidered at no very distant date. I hope they will not be disposed to accept the alteration in this and other points made by the Peers. I sincerely hope that the Government will not move to agree with the Lords in this Amendment. MR. MATTHEWS: I have moved to agree with the Lords. MR. TOMLINSON (Preston): Does the hon. Member seriously mean to say that the alteration in this Bill from 20 to 30 is so important a matter that it will destroy the effect of the Bill, and render it necessary to introduce another measure next Session? The object of the Amendment is to relieve certain small mines from the obligation of having coal weighed. The only cases in which it can be done will be where the owner of the mine, those who work in the mine, and the Home Secretary are all of one mind. MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.): It is to be assumed that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secrehas taken steps to ascertain the effect tary, or the Member in charge of the Bill, of the reach of this Amendment. I therefore ask him if he will be good enough to inform the House, from the statistics at his proposal, what are the number of coal mines in which less than 30 men are employed? In other words, I ask what will be the effect of this Amendment; and I would ask whether, from the light that inquiry throws upon it, it is not clear that, though it may be looked upon as a matter of detail, it is, in fact, an important Amendment, extending the class of mines themselves which would have to be included in the exception? I should like to ask how many of these mines there are? MR. PICKARD (York, W.R., Normanton): This provision which the Lords interfered with was a compromise suggested by the colliers themselves, and accepted by the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Govern ment; I hope, therefore, that the right | This is an alteration of grave and serious hon. Gentleman will not agree with the importance. It means leaving out an Lords' Amendment. MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan): There is a term used here which is not "miners" but "persons," and it covers everyone who is employed in the pit. Well, I am informed that the number of "persons" employed in the pit is very much larger than the number of "miners." Therefore the extension is really one in favour of the original Amendment. I hope the House will not hesitate to acquiesce in this very remarkable Amendment of the House of Lords, which is entirely the spirit of the original change. MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? MR. MATTHEWS: I have no right to speak again; but I may just be allowed to say, perhaps, that I have not got the statistics the hon. Member asks for, or, at least, I do not think so. I would point out to the hon. Member that mines with less than 30 men working in them are exempt from the necessity of having a certificated manager. I was originally in favour of having no limit in this matter; but as the hon. Member seems to be in favour of it, I willingly accept it. MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM (Lanark, N.W.): Does the right hon. Gentleman really intend to tell the House that after all the work and all the debates here our decisions are to be reversed by a small number of noble "miners" in "another place?" I trust the House will disagree with the Amend ment. Question put, and agreed to. Amendments, as far as Amendment, page 28, line 30, agreed to. Amendment moved originally by the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt). The words which it is proposed to strike out of the Bill have reference to the exclusion of the Davy, Clancy, and Stephenson lamps. According to the Report of the Royal Commission, who have gone extensively into this question, it has been found by experiment that the Davy, Clancy, and Stephenson lamps under certain conditions are not at all to be relied upon for purposes of safety. In their Report the Commissioners say that in certain currents the Davy and Clancy lamps cease to be safety lamps, and that the Stephenson may even cause an explosion. Also on page 491 they say that an explosive current with the very moderate velocity of 400 feet per minute is a current in which the Davy lamp ceases to afford protection for more than a few seconds. But they say that when those lamps are protected or encased in proper tin cases, as is now done in all well regulated collieries, an entirely different state of things is obtained. No doubt, the application of certain mechanical contrivances to the Davy lamp may convert it from a dangerous to one of the safest lamps in common use. That shows the immense importance of this question; and I sincerely hope that the Home Secretary will not agree with the Lords and their Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman insists upon it, I shall be disposed to take a Division upon the question. The question is one of very vital importance affecting the safety of the miner, and I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not agree with the Lords. MR. MATTHEWS: It ought to be our desire to prohibit the use of any lamp which will not withstand the curLords Amendments, as far as the rent ordinarily prevailing in mines. But Amendment, page 30, line 29, agreed to. in a case where a protected or unproPage 30, line 29, leave out from "in-tected Davy lamp will resist the ordiflammable," to end of line 30, the next Amendment, read a second time." Motion made, and Question proposed "That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."-(Mr. Secretary Matthews.) MR. FENWICK: I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary does not intend to agree with the House of Lords in this Amendment. VOL. CCCXXI. [THIRD SERIES.] nary current of the mine there is no reason why it should not be used, irrespective of the fact of its being protected. I have had representations from persons all over the country saying that they own unprotected Davy lamps which are thoroughly safe in the mines in which they are used. It would be a great injustice to insist upon these men obtaining new lamps. Then, again, even from a sentimental point of view, Р I think it was hardly to be expected | right hon. Gentleman the Home Secrefrom the Representatives of the miners tary (Mr. Matthews) has very courteof this country that they should object ously listened to all the suggestions to the use of the Davy lamp. To say which have emanated from those who that the Davy lamp is unsafe and have practical acquaintance of the matdangerous to the miner is as flagrant a ter, and I trust he will see his way piece of ingratitude on the part of the to reconsider his decision upon this miner as it is possible to conceive. matter. The right hon. Gentleman has read a letter from one of the members of the Commission in which particular mention is made of the Midland coalfields. I am a Midland coalowner, and I take an entirely different view from that taken in the letter in question. I do not wish at this hour of the morning (2.5) to make a speech; but I desire most emphatically to endorse all that has been said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rhondda Valley (Mr. W. Abraham). In my judgment this Bill falls short of the requirements. It does not go so far in regard to safety as the progress of mining since 1872 MR. W. ABRAHAM (Glamorgan, Rhondda): Circumstances have proved to the miners of this country that what they have been in the habit of looking upon as one of their great sources of safety has in reality proved to be a source of very great danger. I would point out that in their Report the Royal Commissioners, on page 117, say that it has long been known that if the atmosphere becomes inflammable the Davy and the Clancy lamps, and in a less degree the Stephenson lamp, become unsafe in currents having velocities much below those encountered in well regulated mines. The Commissioners the date of the last measure go on to say that the ordinary Davy warrants. I entirely agree with the lamp becomes unsafe before a velocity policy of not prescribing what safety of 400 feet per minute; that the Clancy lamps shall be used. That would be lamp will almost certainly cause an ex-going entirely beyond the function of plosion in a current having a velocity Parliament; but I do think we may go of 600 feet per minute; and that the so far as to say what are not safety Stephenson is unsafe in a current of lamps. The public expect that we will 800 feet per minute. They do not stop keep the Bill in the shape in which it here; but addleft this House. I earnestly entreat the Home Secretary, in the interest of the safety of the mining community, of whose wishes I have some knowledge, to adhere to the Bill as it went up to "another place." "From the information supplied to us by Her Majesty's Inspectors of Mines and others currents having a velocity of more than 400 feet per minute are now frequently found in working places." MR. WOOD (Durham, Houghton-leSpring): I think the right hon. Gentleman would do well in this matter to adhere to the Amendment made in Com I think it is conclusively proved that MR. J. E. ELLIS (Nottingham, Rushcliffe): Perhaps I may say a few words on this matter, as the Amendment which was adopted in Committee stood in my name, though it was actually moved in my absence by my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth. This is a somewhat technical matter, and I placed the Amendment on the Paper, providing that a safety lamp shall not be taken to be a Davy, Clancy, or Stephenson after the most careful perusual of the Report of the Commission upon which this Bill is professedly founded. The MR. PICKARD (York, W. R. Normanton): I am only sorry the Lords have dealt with such matters as really affect the safety of our miners. I trust the Home Secretary will disagree with the Lords' Amendment. MR. MATTHEWS: I do not know whether I ought again to ask the House to observe that it is proposed to pick out three lamps-lamps which are already condemned as unsafe in mines were the currents are strong. The Royal Commission have said of these lamps that with the velocity ordinarily prevailing in large collieries they are unsafe. I am sure hon. Members who understand mining practically will not deny there are |