the second reading of the mines [eight hours] billtoc

house of commons, july 6, 1908

whatever arguments may be urged against this measure, no one can say that the government have acted with precipitation in bringing it before the house and the country. it has been debated for twenty years. parliaments, tory and liberal, have affirmed the principle, and i do not suppose there ever was a similar reform put forward in this house upon a greater volume of scientific and accurate information, or after more prolonged, careful, and sustained scrutiny. if the debate on the second reading has thrown very little new light on this question, it is because it has been fully and thoroughly explored on former occasions; and not only has it been fully explored, but it is now illuminated by the admirable report which has been presented by the departmental committee appointed last session.

[174]this report, while exciting approval on all sides, gives no complete satisfaction to any. it balances, and weighs, but it does not finally pronounce. it aims less at deciding this controversy, than at defining the limits within which its economic aspect may be said to lie. i think any one who reads the report with attention will feel, after careful study, that the limits of the economic controversy are moderately restricted. we have to consider on the one hand the gross reduction of one-tenth in the hours of labour of underground workmen, taking the average over all classes of men and all sorts of mines. and on the other hand we have as a set-off against that gross reduction certain very important mitigations which are enumerated in the report, to which i shall briefly refer.

the first economic question which the house has to settle is, whether these mitigations which are enumerated will have the effect of overtaking the reduction which is to follow the curtailment of hours, or, if not, how far they will fall short in overtaking that reduction.

i do not suppose that any hon. gentleman is likely to change his opinion on a question of such complexity at this [175]late stage of the debate, and therefore i shall only refer by name to these mitigations, bearing in mind how important they are. there are those which depend on the arrangements of employers, and those which depend on the volition of the workers. with regard to the employers, there is improved organisation by methods of haulage and winding, and other means specified in the report. there is the more extensive application of coal-cutting machinery, and the sinking of new pits with modern appliances, which is progressing in many parts of the country.

there is the system of double and multiple shifts. the extension of the system will not be so difficult as has sometimes been supposed. at the present moment, taking the statistics of 1906, a quarter only of the workers below ground are employed in mines in which there is only one coal-getting shift, and in all the mines in which there are two or more coal-getting shifts the first shift preponderates in number greatly over the second, and, therefore, in applying this system of double or multiple shifts, in so far as it is necessary to apply it, we shall not have to face the difficulty of a complete transformation in the methods [176]of working a great many of the mines, but it will be a mere extension of the system which at present exists over a great portion of the coal-getting area.

from the side of labour, the mitigations which may be expected as off-sets to the original reduction are not less important. there is the increased efficiency, of which we have instances actually on record in this report, which has followed from the reduction of hours. there is the power of the worker, if he chooses, to increase his earnings on a short day. there is "absenteeism," which has always been affected by a reduction of hours, and which amounts to 6.6 per cent. of the working time of the mines, and there is the margin of stoppages through slack trade and other circumstances, which at present aggregates 7 per cent. of the working time of the mines. taking these last two alone, they aggregate 13 per cent., or considerably more, as a margin, than the reduction of working time which will be caused by the operation of this bill, even when the full operation is reached.

first of all then, let the house consider carefully whether from these sources it is possible to overtake the 10 per cent. [177]reduction which, in the first instance, the bill imposes. it is a question nicely balanced; it offers matter for fair argument this way and that, but, taking all the means of mitigation together, not only singly but collectively, it is surely very difficult to believe that masters and men, organised as they are, and working together with good will, and with ample time to accommodate themselves to new arrangements, will not be able from all sources to overtake the comparatively small reduction in hours the bill will effect.

i am inclined to an opinion that good use will be made of these margins, but even if we assume, for the sake of the argument, that there will be a net reduction in consequence of the passage of this bill in the output of coal, that reduction must be temporary and transient in its character. for fifty years there have been continuous changes in the conditions of coal-mining in this country. the hours have been reduced, the conditions of boy labour have been restricted, wages have been raised, compensation has been provided, and precautions against accidents have been multiplied. all these changes, the wisdom of which nobody disputes, may from [178]a purely and crudely economic standpoint be said to militate against production. we have heard many prophecies, but what has been the history of the coal trade? there has been a steady, unbroken expansion of output during the last fifty years. in the period of ten years ending in 1874, 76,000,000 tons were produced; in the next ten years 112,000,000; in the next ten years 145,000,000; in the next ten years 172,000,000; and in the last period of ten years 214,000,000—a figure which has been greatly exceeded since.

if it be admitted that there may be a certain reduction in output as a consequence of this bill, that reduction must be considered, not by itself, not in isolation, but in relation to the steady and persistent movement of coal production for the last fifty years. to me it seems certain that the small temporary restriction will be lost in the general tendency to expansion, as the eddy is carried forward by the stream and the recoiling wave is lost in the advancing tide.

but these arguments would be wholly vitiated if it could be shown that the restriction of hours was so violent in its character, so sudden in its application, so [179]rigid in its methods as, not merely to cause a certain shrinkage in the volume of the output, but to upset the economy of the coal-mining industry. in that case there would be not merely a curtailment which might be mitigated, but we should have injured and possibly disorganised the industry; and it is at this point that it is proper for the house to consider the safeguards introduced by the government into the bill. these safeguards are of the greatest importance.

there is the safeguard of overtime. sixty hours a year are permitted. in districts where men work ten days a fortnight, twelve weeks may be one hour longer than the usual time allowed by the bill; and where the days laboured are only four in the week, fifteen weeks of extended time will be possible through the provision of overtime. there are provisions with regard to the labour of certain persons permitted to remain below ground beyond the legal hours for special purposes, and there is a power which relaxes the bill altogether in an emergency which is likely to delay or arrest the general work of the mine, and, of course, in any case where there is accident or danger. finally, if there should be risk of a corner or an [180]unexpected rise in price, the government have power by order in council to suspend the whole operation of the law in order to prevent anything like a serious crisis arising in the coal trade.

i cannot bring myself to believe that with all these safeguards it will not be possible for the coal industry, if given time, to accommodate itself to the new conditions. it is only two years ago that i was invited from the benches opposite to contemplate the approaching ruin of the gold mines of the rand through the change introduced in the methods of working. that change has been enforced, with the result that working expenses have been reduced, and the standard of production has increased. in making that transition, if time had not been allowed to tide over the period of change, then, indeed, you might have had that disaster which hon. gentlemen opposite have always been ready to apprehend. but there is here to be a gradual process of adaptation, for which not less than five years is permitted.

we are told that positive reasons, and not negative reasons, ought to be given in support of a measure which regulates the hours of adult labour—that you ought [181]to show, not that it will do no harm, but that good will come from it. there are, of course, such reasons in support of this bill, but they are so obvious that they have not been dwelt upon as much as they might have been. the reasons are social reasons. we believe that the well-being of the mining population, numbering some 900,000 persons, will be sensibly advanced in respect of health, industrial efficiency, habits of temperance, education, culture, and the general standard of life. we have seen that in the past the shortening of hours has produced beneficial effects in these respects, and we notice that in those parts of the country where the hours of coal-mining are shortest, the university extension lecturers find that the miners take an intelligent interest in their lectures—and it is among the miners of fifeshire that a considerable development in gardening and also of saving to enable them to own their own houses, has followed on a longer period of leisure.

but the general march of industrial democracy is not towards inadequate hours of work, but towards sufficient hours of leisure. that is the movement among the working people all over the country. [182]they are not content that their lives should remain mere alternations between bed and the factory. they demand time to look about them, time to see their homes by daylight, to see their children, time to think and read and cultivate their gardens—time, in short, to live. that is very strange, perhaps, but that is the request they have made and are making with increasing force and reason as years pass by.

no one is to be pitied for having to work hard, for nature has contrived a special reward for the man who works hard. it gives him an extra relish, which enables him to gather in a brief space from simple pleasures a satisfaction in search of which the social idler wanders vainly through the twenty-four hours. but this reward, so precious in itself, is snatched away from the man who has won it, if the hours of his labour are too long or the conditions of his labour too severe to leave any time for him to enjoy what he has won.

professor marshall, in his "principles of economics," says:

"the influence which the standard of hours of work exerts on economic activities is partially obscured by the fact that the earnings of a human being are commonly [183]counted gross; no special reckoning being made for his wear-and-tear, of which he is himself rather careless. further, very little account is taken of the evil effects of the overwork of men on the well-being of the next generation.... when the hours and the general conditions of labour are such as to cause great wear-and-tear of body or mind or both, and to lead to a low standard of living; when there has been a want of that leisure, rest, and repose which are among the necessaries for efficiency, then the labour has been extravagant from the point of view of society at large.... and, since material wealth exists for the sake of man, and not man for the sake of material wealth, the replacement of inefficient and stunted human lives by more efficient and fuller lives would be a gain of a higher order than any temporary material loss that might have been occasioned on the way."

if it be said that these arguments are general, is it not true that special circumstances differentiate the case of coal-miners from that of many other industries in this country? others have spoken of the heat of the mine, the danger of fire-damp, of the cramped position, of the muscular [184]exertions of the miner, at work in moist galleries perhaps a mile under the ground. i select the single fact of deprivation of natural light. that alone is enough to justify parliament in directing upon the industry of coal-mining a specially severe scrutiny and introducing regulations of a different character from those elsewhere.

the hon. member for windsor[10] who moved the rejection of this bill described it as a reckless and foolhardy experiment. i see the miner emerging from the pit after eight hours' work with the assertion on his lips that he, at any rate, has paid his daily debt to his fellow men. is the house of commons now going to say to him, "you have no right to be here. you have only worked eight hours. your appearance on the surface of the earth after eight hours' work is, to quote the hon. member, 'a reckless and foolhardy experiment'"? i do not wonder at the miners' demand. i cannot find it in my heart to feel the slightest surprise, or indignation, or mental disturbance at it. my capacity for wonder is entirely absorbed, not by the miners' demand, but by the gentleman in the silk hat and white waistcoat who has the composure [185]and the complacency to deny that demand and dispute it with him.

the hon. member for dulwich[11]—himself a convinced protectionist, with a tariff with 1,200 articles in its schedules in his coat-tail pocket—has given us a delightful lecture on the importance of cheapness of production. think of the poor consumer! think of the importance to our industries of cheapness of production! we on this side are great admirers of cheapness of production. we have reminded the hon. gentleman of it often; but why should cheapness of production always be achieved at the expense of the human factor? the hon. gentleman spoke with anxiety of the possibility of a rise in miners' wages as a consequence of this bill. has he considered the relation of miners' wages to the selling prices of coal? at the pit's mouth the underground-workers' wages are only 60 per cent. of the selling price of coal. free on board on the tyne, the proportion is only 38 per cent. as coal is sold here in the south of england the proportion of wages is less than one-fifth of the whole price. is it not clear that there are other factors at least which require consideration before you decide [186]to deal with the human factor, which first attracts the attention of the hon. gentleman?

what about mining royalties? in all this talk about the importance of cheap coal to our industries and to the poor consumer we have had no mention of mining royalties. no. we never mention that. yet, will the house believe it, it is estimated that mining royalties impose a toll of 6 per cent., calculated on the price of coal at the pit's mouth, or considerably more than half the total diminished production which could result from this humane act of labour legislation.

but we are asked: "why stop here? why don't your arguments apply elsewhere?" and we are told of people whose conditions of life are worse than some of those of coal-miners. why stop here? who ever said we would stop here? i welcome and support this measure, not only for its own sake, but much more because it is, i believe, simply the precursor of the general movement which is in progress all over the world, and in other industries besides this, towards reconciling the conditions of labour with the well-ascertained laws of science and health. if we are told that because we support this measure we shall be inflicting an injury or [187]injustice on other classes of the population, i say there is a great solidarity among all classes of manual labourers. i believe that when they consider this matter they will see that all legitimate interests are in harmony, that no one class can obtain permanent advantage by undue strain on another, and that in the end their turn will come for shorter hours, and will come the sooner because they have aided others to obtain that which they desire themselves.

when the house is asked to contemplate gloomy pictures of what will follow on this bill, let them recur to the example of parliaments gone by. when the ten hours bill was introduced in 1847, a bill which affected the hours of adult males inferentially, the same lugubrious prophecies were indulged in from both sides of the house. distinguished economists came forward to prove that the whole profit of the textile industry was reaped after the eleventh hour. famous statesmen on both sides spoke strongly against the measure. the parliament, in 1847, was in the same sort of position as we are to-day in this respect, but how differently circumstanced in other respects. that parliament did not enjoy the wide and accurate statistical information in every [188]branch of labour which enables us to-day to move forward with discretion and prudence. they were not able to look to the general evidences of commercial security and expansion on which modern politicians can rely. they could not show, as we can show, overwhelming examples of owlish prophets dazzlingly disproved; they could not point, as we can point, to scores of cases where not only increased efficiency, but a positive increase in output has followed the reduction of the hours of labour. the principle was new, the future was vague. but the parliament of those days did not quail. they trusted to broad, generous instincts of common sense; they drew a good, bold line; and we to-day enjoy in a more gentle, more humane, more skilful, more sober, and more civilised population the blessings which have followed their acts. now it is our turn. let us vote for the second reading of this bill, and in so doing establish a claim upon the respect of parliaments to come, such as we ourselves owe to parliaments of the past.