Letters and Papers Concerning the Trans-Persian Railway and Other Railways in Persia [‎182r] (363/442)

297
Coal Mines
298
[25 May 1914] {Northumberland) Bill
The Marquess of LONDONDERRY :
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Joicey has
explained so fully the opposition to this
Bill—and I can assure your Lordships that
there is nobody in the North of England
who is better qualified to discuss the coal
question than Lord Joicey—that I think it
is hardly necessary for me to occupy your
Lordships at any length, especially as the
speech of my noble friend has been endorsed
by the noble Viscount who represents the
Home Office. I confess I was somewhat
surprised when I saw this Bill down in the
name of my noble friend Lord Willoughby.
I do not think, if I may say so, that my
noble friend would have brought it forward
had he had practical experience of the
working of the coal industry in the North
of England. I would tell him that the coal
industry is a very delicate industry and
requires the most delicate handling. I
endorse what Lord Joicey said, that the
reason why the coal industry in the North
of England works so satisfactorily is that
cordial goodwill and co-operation exists
between all classes working in that industry.
The men as well as the masters are repre
sented on the joint councils. Those joint
councils have worked admirably for many
years, and I with others would be sorry if
anything were done to disturb the mutually
good relations which have existed for so
many years. While I fully recognise his
desire to abolish the inconvenience to
which he referred, I do not think my noble
friend Lord Willoughby realises the details
of the working of the coal industry.
I had intended dealing with this question
rather fully, but the noble Lord who moved
the rejection of the Bill and the noble
Viscount who represents the Home Office
have dealt with it, and therefore I will not
trespass upon your Lordships’ time in this
connection ; but I would like to tell your
Lordships that the one desire of the coal
owners in the North of England is to make
the men as comfortable as possible. For
those who are not so well acquainted with
the working of coal mines as, for instance,
Lord Durham and myself—for like our
forefathers we have been connected with
the coal trade in the North of England and
in the North of Ireland for a very long
period—it may not be uninteresting if I
give a few of the details dealt with in the
working of a coal mine. There is one rudi
ment in the working of a coal mine, and
that is to keep the cost of production as
cheap as possible ; you want to keep the
price as low as possible in order that the
coal can be sold at a cheap price, not only
for the general benefit, but for the benefit
of the vast and important industries
throughout the United Kingdom which
depend so entirely upon coal. There is
another well-known axiom in the coal
trade—namely, that the greater the output,
the less the cost of production. Therefore
the one endeavour of owners and workers
in the mines is to turn out as much coal
as possible in order to keep down the cost
of production. Every effort is made to
carry out this system.
But what will this Bill do ? It will
most seriously limit the output of coal,
not only in the three-shift collieries but
also in the two-shift collieries, and also
materially increase the cost of production,
with serious results not only in those
districts but all over the country The
three-shift system, as Lord Joicey has
said, is not new in Northumberland, in
Durham, and, I believe, in other parts
of England. It was practised at some
collieries long before the passing of the
Eight Hours Act, and its general adoption
was suggested by the men in 1895 as a
satisfactory way of meeting a reduction
in the boys’ hours, which was then being
urged. All that has been done by the
Northumberland coal owners is to extend
the system, in common with the coal
owners in other districts, Durham for
example. The effect of the Eight Hours
Act has been to force a near approach to
uniformity in methods of working upon
the whole of Great Britain irrespective
of local circumstances —namely, a hard
and fast eight hours day for all hands
employed below ground, instead of seven
hours for hewers and a longer shift for
other classes of labour as practised in
* other parts of Northumberland. Mr. Burt
stated that the crucial question was the
lengthening of the hewers’ hours, and
could this be arranged the parties, he
thought, could get over the difficulties on
the other questions. Mr. Fenwick, on
November 27, 1909, asked one of the
miners’ representatives to put forward
particulars of a scheme of working without
the lengthening of the hewers’ hours.
This scheme included a third shift for
hewers, and, so far as the hewers were
concerned, differed very little from the
three-shift system ultimately agreed with