vernment will listen to the remon-nent Inspectors. I think the House

strances on the part of those who have no desire to inflame the popular passions in regard to this matter, and that they will reconsider the question whether it is not worth while that two or three days further would be well expended in trying to induce their Lordships to have the good sense not to insist on this Amendment.

may take it for granted that the miners of Yorkshire and of the United Kingdom have more regard for their pockets than to appoint men to be permanent Inspectors of mines. As I look at this question, it appears to me the Government left it to the House of Lords to take away from us what the Government dare not take away from us when the MR. PICKARD: I think it is only Bill was being considered in this House. fair, seeing that the hon. Member for I do not blame the House of Lords for Morpeth has been so often alluded to, to their action in this matter; but I do say that the hon. Member gave a very blame the Government for accepting the different version of his idea on the Amendment. The Government knew matter, compared with that suggested exactly our position. We told them by the Home Secretary. He said, speak- that, time after time, men who have ing personally, that in all well-regulated faithfully reported the results of their mines he should consider that two men inspection have, if not actually turned out of those mines would be fit and away from their employment, been sent proper persons to inspect the mine. But into a bad or wet part of the colliery we know, as a matter of fact, that in to work, and have been made so unall well-regulated mines, although the comfortable that they have had eventu managers may be there when the men ally to leave the colliery. I myself make the inspection, they do not take stated in this House that from one colthe trouble to turn those men away or liery alone, so far as I could gather, 31 make it impossible for the men to con- men had been exiled. Some have gone tinue their work there. The hon. Mem- to Canada, some to Australia, and some ber for Morpeth said that, speaking for to America; others have migrated to the general body of workmen of the other parts of this country in order to United Kingdom, he felt bound to obtain employment. It is only fair for acquiesce in this Amendment. I think, me to state that if this rule stands as it therefore, that we have been ufairly now is, although it will give the men treated in this debate, and if the hon. power to select their Inspectors from Member for Morpeth had been here he men in neighbouring collieries, it is not would have put the right hon. Gentle- likely that the owners or managers of man right. What is the object of this those collieries will suffer their men to provision. It is that two persons should leave their work in order to inspect a be appointed to examine the mine. neighbouring colliery. And even if they Their only function is to report, and if do, the men will have the same fear of the report states that there is any real being turned away from their work by danger in the mine, the manager-or some foolish manager. The Amendthe men who make the inspection-are ment will not alter the 30th rule in bound to send forward that report to the 1872 Act one iota. Now, we the Home Secretary, or to the Inspector have another addition to this rule for the district. We have been told which is not in the present Act. It is during the debates in this House that that these men finding danger in the the object of the Amendment is to pre-mine must send their report to the Invent demagogues being allowed in the mine for the purposes of inspection. Agents in Durham are allowed to inspect the mines, and I think the same takes place in Northumberland. I do not think 80 far as mine managers are concerned, that they have any real objection to the clause as it stood before amended by the Lords. There is another idea which seems to have been imported into this matter, and that is, that the men about to be appointed are to become perma

spector for the district. Their names will no doubt, in consequence, be blazoned abroad throughout the country, and it will make it more difficult for them to get work in other collieries. We are pleading for the safety of the miners. Our object is not to have two men appointed as Inspectors to, as in the past, simply make an inspection when an explosion takes place. We do not want in the future to do, as we have had to do in Yorkshire in the past-to go cap in

hand to the manager, and ask will he | Bill at an earlier period in the Session, allow us to go down the mine and see so that it might receive that considerathat it is in proper order, and then, if he tion which a measure of this eminence refuses, have to wire to the Home Se- requires. But they have driven it off cretary and appeal to him to interfere. to the very end of the Session, and now Yet that will be the case in the future, that we have the miners appealing to unless we guard against it. The men a Minister, on a very important point, to ought to have perfect freedom to ap- make a concession with regard to the point whom they choose. I do not say Lords' Amendments, he will not do so, that we, their Parliamentary Repre- because he says that it is too late. Nay, sentatives, have any more right than it is not too late; it is not too late if the anybody else to be appointed. I have lives of the miners are to be considered. no desire for any such work; it is We have sat here from January down to dangerous work after an explosion has the present time, another day more or taken place; but I do claim the men less-three or four days more or less should be at liberty to appoint whom will not matter to some of us who have they choose, and we appeal now to the not to go away immediately to our pleaGovernment to stand by their Bill and sure. We want to make this Bill, if we disagree with the Lords' Amendment. can, a perfect Bill, and I even now implore the Government to see if they cannot reconsider this Amendment, the grounds of objection to which my hon. Friends in the most pathetic and eloquent language at their command have described. I am sorry to differ from my Friend the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff; but I must say, that if the Government refuse to reconsider their decision, I shall advise my hon. Friends not to cease their fight, but to take the Government and their Supporters once more through the Lobbies. It is not the first time we have divided the House on a great principle, and I implore my hon. Friends to do it again.

MR. CONYBEARE: I do not think that it is of much use appealing to the Government. They have long since shown themselves deaf to all appeals. I recommend my hon. Friends to appeal instead to their countrymen, to make it plain who are their friends in this House, and to point out to them that the House of Peers is useless and dangerous, and ought to be abolished.

Question put.

61: Majority 73.-(Div. List, No. 482.) The House divided:-Ayes 134; Noes

MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.): I have not interfered during the discussion on this Bill in its various stages through the House, but it has not been because I have lacked a deep sympathy with my hon. Friends in their work. But not being technically acquainted with that work, I have simply been satisfied with following them into the Lobby. In fact, I had one Amendment which I put down to the Bill in Com- MR. FENWICK: I rise to say, that mittee; but finding that one of the Mem- considering the utter hopelessness of bers for Durham also had an Amend-getting any concession from the Govern ment on the Paper to the same effect, ment, after consultation with my Friends, I stayed out of the House in order that we have agreed to allow the remainder he might move it, as I thought it would of the Amendments to go. come with greater force from him. Now, Sir, I take it that these Amendments are sent down from the House of Lords for our consideration, and that they are not sent down to us to swallow in their entirety just as they come down. If Ministers say there is no time at the sent period of the Session to send them back to the House of Lords in the event of our disagreeing with them, then I say the responsibility rests with them and not upon my hon. Friends who represent the miners in this House. My hon. Friends have, time after time, urged the Government to bring forward this

pre

Subsequent Amendments agreed to.

TRUCK BILL.-[BILL 377.] CONSIDERATION OF LORDS REASONS, AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.

Lords Reasons, and consequential Amendments considered.

Lords Reason read, for insisting on their Amendments to leave out Clauses

4 and 5.

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton): I shall ask the House to agree with the Lords in their said Amendments.

I do

so with considerable regret that these | And he says he does this in order to two clauses should have been struck save the Bill. Now, Sir, the question of out; but the Bill seems to me to be a this clause was brought forward in a Bill of such value, that I do not think I most extraordinary way, and I doubt if shall be justified in allowing it to drop. anything like a parallel can be found Even at this very late hour in the morn- for it, in my Parliamentary experience at ing I must ask the Members of this any rate. This clause was inserted in House to permit me briefly to state the Bill on the 12th July last; the matter some of the items of value contained in of it was thoroughly discussed by Memthe Bill. I wish to do so, because a bers of both Parties, and after considerstatement has been made at the Trades able debate, it was inserted by a vote Union Congress at Swansea, to the of two to one, every Irish Member effect that the Bill is valueless. I have with the exception of 2 voting for it. not troubled the House much during the Every Liberal Member with but one progress of the Bill, but I will now exception voted for it, and 46 Gentlemen briefly recapitulate some of the points of opposite, including the Home Secretary, value. It extends the provisions of the voted for the clause. An Amendment Truck Law to all trades, instead of by the Attorney General for England limiting them in their operation as here- excluding servants in husbandry, I ac- tofore; it compels advances to be made cepted, and thereupon the clause was where advances have been made be- unanimously inserted. The Bill was fore solely on interest; it prohibits the then sent to the Lords; the clause was charging of interest on such advances or struck out without a syllable of discusof discount thereon; it renders stores sion in a House composed of 20 Peers. kept by others than the employers The Bill came back here; the debate on liable to the same law as stores kept by the clause was renewed, and on that employers; it prevents dismissal for not occasion I was supported by the Conserdealing at any particular shop; it deals vative Members for East and South Belwith the barter practices chiefly preva- fast as well as by the hon. and gallant lent in Scotland; and, what is still more Gentleman the Member for North important, it provides facilities for the Armagh (Colonel Saunderson). That prosecution of offenders. I think, there- union of opinion proved what I here fore, that the Bill is too valuable to lose, assert-that is, that the opinion of the Reand I therefore ask the House to agree presentatives of the Irish people is prac. with the Lords' Amendments. tically unanimously in favour of the retention of this clause. When the Bill came back from the House of Lords the subject was, as I state, again closely and thoroughly debated. Members of both Parties spoke in favour of it, the oppoclause was reinstated by a unanimous sition to it completely broke down, the decision of the House, and the Bill was sent back a second time to the House of Lords. I have said, Sir, that on the first occasion there was not a syllable of argument. A noble Duke connected with Scotland merely muttered a few words and the noble Peer in charge of the Bill at once withdrew the clause. On the second occasion Lord Clinton, an English Peer, moved the rejection of the clause, and excused himself from offering any argument by saying that the arguments offered on a previous occasion were sufficient. But I have informed the House that not a syllable of argument was advanced on that previous occasion, although it was good enongh for Lord Clinton's case to say that these

MR. SPEAKER: The form of the Resolution will be, that this House do not insist on disagreeing with the Amendments on which the Lords have insisted.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth not insist on its disagreement with the Lords in the said Amendments, on which the Lords do insist."-(Mr. Bradlaugh.)

MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.): I am prepared to move that the House do insist on its disagreement, so far as Clause 4 is concerned; but that not being now in Order I find it my duty to oppose as far as I can the Motion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton. It will be observed that the hon. Gentleman carefully avoided the merits of the question. His argument is that because the Bill in its other clauses contains valuable matter, he is willing to give up Clause 4, which provides for the payment of wages weekly in Ireland.

alleged arguments were sufficient to | Lordships, who have sent down this justify the exclusion of the clause. Reason to us, debated and passed a Now, Sir, I have three reasons for the clause regulating the period at which insertion of the clause, and I maintain wages shall be paid in certain counties that any one of them should be deemed in England. What is the audacity or good enough. The first is that a system sense then of offering such a Reason, as of the weekly payment of wages was that the obligation to pay wages at formerly the rule in Ireland; it was a different periods in different parts of custom which grew up from the condi- the United Kingdom is undesirable, tion of the country, and which corre- when the Lords themselves passed a Bill sponded with the needs of the people declaring that wages in certain parts of there. It is now a real necessity. That is the United Kingdom shall be paid at my first reason. The second reason is, certain times. The second Reason given that the Representatives for Ireland is, that a provision for regulating the are, I may say, unanimously in favour time for the payment of wages is not of the clause. I have said that only two germane to the Bill. Now that is quite Irish Members voted against it, and I illusory. My bon. Friend the Member should be surprised if even those two for Northampton, when the Bill was last voted against it to-night. The third before the House, quoted the Report of reason is, that the system of fortnightly a Royal Commission, which recently payments adopted by some firms in Bel-reported that where a system of long fast produced excitement and disorder. It led a few months since to a strike of 6,000 men, not political friends of mine, but strong supporters and ardent admirers of the Party opposite. The strike I referred to continued so long that it produced great distress, and endangered the peace of the town. of the town. On my advice the men gave up the strike and returned to their work, relying on the justice of their case. This House responded to the demand I made on it, and now it remains to be seen why the House of Lords should stultify the action of the House of Commons. The only shred of argument against the clause was this-that it would incommode certain firms in Belfast. But I have already pointed out that the system of fortnightly wages was an innovation, a system of weekly payments obtained for many years, and the firms were prosperous during that period. In a brief document which has been circulated the Lords have given two Reasons for their action-Lord Clinton gave none: The first is, that the Lords insist on leaving out the clause because an obligation to pay wages at different periods in different parts of the United Kingdom is undesirable. I traverse that assertion, I say that if local circumstances in any part of the United Kingdom require a special rule, the opinion of the Representatives of that part should prevail. But there is an even more conclusive reply; for by their own action in the case of the Stannaries Act, passed during the present Session, their

pay exists no legislation could prevent a system of truck, because the poverty of the men, if their wages were kept from them for a lengthened period, drove them to obtain credit, and they were com pelled to resort to certain traders. Now that is truck pure and simple, and I say in regard to the Belfast men that those who are only paid fortnightly are plunged into credit during the second week; they are obliged to resort to certain dealers, and they have not the same freedom regarding the quality or price of their goods as they would have if they had their wages in hand. That again is a system of truck, and if you leave out this clause from the Bill, you impose on these men the continuation of that system of truck. So much for the Lords' Reasons. The First Lord of the Treasury has told us that if this clause is not left out the Bill may, perhaps, be lost. Why should it? I fail to see the reason. You may be delayed a day or two, but it is quite within the competence of the present Government, or of the House, to strike out the clause and yet save the Bill. The only question is one of two or three days' delay. Why should not the House sit two or three days longer in order to save this clause?

MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Member is under a mistake. The Bill has now reached a stage that, unless the House agrees to the Lords' Amendments, it is lost.

MR. SEXTON: Why?

MR. W. H. SMITH: It is lost by the Rules.