Letters and Papers Concerning the Trans-Persian Railway and Other Railways in Persia [‎176r] (351/442)

274
[ 25 May 1914 ] (Northumberland) Bill.
21$ Coal Mines
COAL MINES (NORTHUMBERLAND) BILL.
[H.L.]
[Second Reading.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading
read.
Lord WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE:
My Lords, I ask your Lordships to give
this Bill to-day a Second Reading, and I
have to say at the beginning that if it is
faulty in detail, as it may well be, I am
quite prepared to consider all reasonable
Amendments provided that the principle
at which the Bill aims is preserved. The
object of the Bill is to abolish the three-
shift system of working in coal mines in
Northumberland. I dare say many noble
Lords will want to know what an agricul
tural landlord who lives in the Midlands
has to do with Northumberland. That has
already been suggested to me. I suppose
people think that a Master of Foxhounds
has no right to penetrate further beneath
the surface of the earth than is necessary
for digging out foxes. Something of the
kind occurred to me when this matter was
first brought to my notice, and I thought
at the time that it would be far better that
the persons concerned should obtain redress
through those with whom they were imme
diately connected, such as the owners of
the mines or their own representatives in
Parliament. But all means that these men
have taken in order to get their grievance
ventilated in Parliament appear to have
failed. Accordingly I went to Newcastle,
and there interviewed several representa
tives of the miners who are affected by
this system. I saw sixty or seventy miners’
representatives, and they laid their case
before me ; they represented in their turn
from 10,000 to 12,000 men. I was con
vinced that they had a very real and
legitimate grievance, and I resolved to lay
it before Parliament—firstly, because the
House of Lords is now the only House of
Parliament where you get anything like
free speech ; and, secondly, because I felt
that there was a great principle at stake.
That principle, with which I believe your
Lordships will agree, is that no business or
industry ought to be carried on for profit
if it involves conditions of life which are
not consistent with the best interests of
the race. Everybody knows that no one
is going to carry on a business unless he
makes, or is likely to make, a profit out
of it; but I say that if a profit cannot be
made except by carrying on a business in
such a way as involves the class of condi-
(d 570) . A
tions which I shall disclose, then it is up
to the managers of that business either
to close down or else to carry on the busi
ness in a manner consistent with the best
interests of humanity. I am not an expert
in coal mines.
The Marquess of LONDONDERRY:
Hear, hear.
Lord WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE:
Yes; but if debates in the House of
Commons and in the House of Lords were
confined to experts I do not believe we
should get any debates at all about the
Army, or the Navy, or agriculture, or any
thing else, and if we waited until the
expert came along I do not think we should
get very much business done. But be that
as it may, I was explaining when the noble
Marquess, Lord Londonderry, came into
the House that the reason why I am
moving the Second Reading of this Bill
this afternoon is that those who have
invited me to bring it forward have been
unable to get in any other way their case
presented to Parliament. Briefly, the
three-shift system is this. I am not saying
that this system has been introduced as a
direct consequence of the passing of the
Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Act, but the facts
are—and I believe the noble Lord who is
going to move the rejection of this Bill
will follow me in this—that before the
Eight Hours Act became law there were
two seven-hour shifts for hewers and one
ten-hours shift for putters. The Act
reduced the hours and made it necessary
to have two shifts for putters. Then it
was found that the putters could put more
coal than the hewers could hew, and a
third shift for hewers had to be introduced.
That, briefly, is the reason why the three-
shift system was brought into existence.
I am not concerned to explain to your
Lordships the agreements which preceded
the introduction of the three-shift system.
I dare say they will be disclosed in the
debate this afternoon. But if those agree
ments were arrived at, then the men will
tell you that they were arrived at by their
representatives behind their backs, and
that had they been properly explained to
the miners at the time, they were not
agreements such as they would have agreed
to. They certainly would not have agreed
to them if they could have foreseen the
results. They now say that the three-shift
system is destructive of their home life.
They say that it places an intolerable
2