Letters and Papers Concerning the Trans-Persian Railway and Other Railways in Persia [‎182v] (364/442)

299
Coal Mines
[ LORDS ] (Northumberland) Bill. 300
the men. I cannot but think, after the
men’s own desire that there should be this
third shift, that if there had been any
feeling on the subject against it, the men,
through their agents and representatives,
would have brought it before the notice of
the public. The agreement was a com
promise with which neither party was
satisfied. If there is this feeling which
my noble friend says there is—I have not
had any experience of it myself although
I live a good deal of my time in the North
—it is necessary that the owners should
elicit from the men exactly what their
objections are to the three-shift system,
so that they may know what it is they
have to meet. At the present moment
we have no intimation that the men desire
a change, and, as has been pointed out,
they have their representatives who would
not hesitate to bring the matter forward
if there was any real feeling in regard to
it.
I wish to look at this question from the
men’s point of view, and to point out
what would be the result of a limited
output of coal if this third-shift system
were abolished. It would lead to the dis
missal or unemployment of at least one
third of the men employed. It is very
doubtful, as Lord Joicey has told you,
whether those men would be able to get
fresh employment; at any rate, they
would not be able probably to get employ
ment in those collieries and districts
where they and their fathers and grand
fathers before them worked. And a man
brought up to pit life would find it difficult
to alter his mode of living in order to take
up any other employment. The w T ages of
a pitman are very high, and justly high
because his is a perilous occupation. I
should like, if you will not consider me
egotistical, to speak with regard to my
own experience in the case of my own
collieries. The proportion of labour cost
per ton of coal raised is to-day 74 per
cent, of the total cost. This compares
with 63 per cent, in 1879 when the basis
was fixed. Miners’ wages now form 11 per
cent, more of the total cost than was the
case in 1879. I say that to show that
these are wages which any working man
would be glad to get. Where could these
men get that wage and live up to the
extent of comfort they had previously
enjoyed if they were dismissed from the
collieries owing to the extra cost of pro-
The Marquess of Londonderry.
duction and fewer men being employed ?
If I may, I would venture to say one word
to my noble friend Lord Willoughby de
Broke. I see that the representatives
of the agricultural labourers in his county
went in a deputation to the Chancellor
of the Exchequer the other day, and put
forward their grievances with regard to
very low wages and long hours of work.
I suggest to him that he might apply his
talents to bettering the lot of those
labourers. Their wages will not compare
with the wages in Northumberland. If
my noble friend would leave Northumber
land alone and endeavour to benefit the
agricultural classes in the county in which
he lives, I am sure he would never regret
it.
The Marquess of SALISBURY : My
Lords, I do not intend to trouble your
Lordships for more than a moment or
two. I rise principally for the purpose
of joining my voice to that of Lord
Crawford in suggesting to my noble
friend Lord Willoughby that he should
be satisfied with the discussion which he
has raised. 1 cannot, however, agree
with some of the remarks which have
been made in the course of this after
noon’s discussion to the effect that my
noble friend Lord Willoughby was not
entitled to raise a debate upon the con
dition of these particular miners. It
seems to be thought by some people that
your Lordships are not entitled to discuss
a question unless you are experts in the
matter. I am afraid I cannot take that
view of the duties of your Lordships’
House. As one of the Houses of Parlia
ment it is our business to consider all the
grievances of the people; not only the*
grievances which can be proved, but the
grievances which can be alleged. It is
our business to discuss them and determine
upon them impartially. It would be no
more true to say that we ought not to
discuss them than to say that a Judge
ought not to try a patent case unless he
is an inventor, or that a barrister should
not plead in a licensing case unless he is
a brewer. The capacity to hear, judge,
and determine the grievances of the people
does not belong particularly to experts.
Therefore I do not in the least say that
my noble friend w 7 as not entitled to bring
forward this Bill. I think he was fully
justified in doing it, and I think he has
performed a public service in calling atten-