The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1887-05-21 00:00:00

PIT-BROW WOKEN IN LONDON.

On Tuesday morning a deputation of " pit-brow "
women from Lancashire, who had the previous even-
ing attended the House of Commons lobby in a body
to state their case to a number of members of Parlia-
ment, waited upon the Home Secretary for the pur-
pose of making representations in opposition to the
proposed amendments to the Coal Mines Regulation
Bill of which Mr. Burt and Mr. Atherley ao.ies had
given notice. Some of the pit women were dressed in
their characteristic attire—short skirts, trousers, and
clogs. Mr. Walter M`Laren, M.P., introduced the
deputation.
Mr. M'Laren then addressed Mr. Matthews, with
whom was Mr. Stuart-Wortley, M.P., the Under-
Secretary, and said that the women came from nine
different towns and villages in Lancashire. The move-
ment was not, therefore, limited to a small area or to
the owners of coal mines. The amendments to which
these women objected stood in the names of Messrs.
Burt; and Atherley Jones. Mr. Burt's amendment
provided that after the passing of the Act no
women shall be engaged to work about any mine,
although nothing is to prevent those who are already
employed continuing at work. Mr. Jones on the
other hand, proposed that no women at all should
work at the mines after the passing of the Act. The
women contended that there was no reason whatever
why their labour should be interfered with. Nothing
could with truth be alleged against the moral cha-
racter of the women employed at the pit bank. It
had been stated that the work was harder than that
performed by women engaged in many other occupa-
tions. The women, however, worked only 8 hours
per day, as compared with the 10 hours per day of
mill bands, while the work was much healthier than
that of the London seamstress. There was no reason
for interference by law, because if the women did not
like the work they could leave it. In conclusion, the
hon. gentleman expressed the hope that the Govern-
ment would refuse to accept the amendment.
Mrs. Park, wife of the Mayor of Wigan, Mr.
Oakes, and Mr. Kay, representatives of the miners,
also addressed the Home Secretary.
In reply to Mr. Matthews, some of the women
stated that the work they did was "screening."
Generally speaking it was the work of men to pack
the waggons.
Mr. Matthews: The clause now runs—" No boy.
girl, or woman shall be employed in moving railway
waggons."
A Voice: Let that remain.
In reply to further questions it was stated that the
wages of the women varied from 9s. to 15s. per week,
while those of a mill hand were from bs. for an un-
skilled person to 15s. per week for a skilled opera-
tive.
Mr. Matthews: Are there any grievances that the
pit girls have to complain of?
The Women: No, sir.
Mr. G. Cavendish Bentmck, M.P., presented memo-
rials from the miners of Cumberland against the
amendment of Mr. Burt.

Miss Josephine Butler, Miss Muller, Lord Craw-
ford and Balcarres, Earl Fortescue, and the Countess
of Lathom also spoke.
Mr. Matthews, in reply, said his own instincts had
always been strong against the Government meddling
with full-grown people, who knew their own business
best. He agreed with one of the speakers that for
people in London to attempt to decide what Lan-
cashire girls should do or not do was a very unwise
proceeding. Therefore in framing the bill he had de-
clined to interfere with the labour of women and
girls, save in the solitary case of removing railway
wtiggons, which might be a work of difficulty and
danger. Ihe only thing which would justify legislative
interference with women who chose to undertake a
certain clams of work would be either that it was pre-
judicial to their character and their morals, or that it
was prejudicial to their health. The practical evi-
dence he had heard had satisfied him that the pit-
brow work was not either the one or the other. As
to the work being hard he did not think it hurt
women to work hard, and he did not think that any
interference on the part of the State was to be
justified. With regard to the character of the women,
all that could be said was against the costume, which,
no doubt, looked rather Bulgarian than English, but
at the rawe time seemed to him a decent and proper
costume. All he could say, in conclusion, was that
he would resist both the amendments. (Cheers.)
The deputation thanked the right hon. gentleman
and withdrew.

THE Bishop of Carlisle, in an article on the late
Master of Trinity, gives one of Dr. Thompson's hap-
piest mots. Two of his brother fellows were disput-
ing whether a certain man's father was a coachbuilder
or a lawyer.—Why, said Dr. Thompson, do you not
split the difference, and say that he was a convey-
ancer?

T'S a solemn thing, young man, said the broken-
hearted father, to come into the home of an old man
and take away his only daughter, the
_light of the.,
household, and the prop and solace of his declining
years. But you have my blessing, and I wish you
every joy, and But I won't take her away,
sir, interrupted the young man, inexpressibly affected.
We'll both stay with you.

THE IRISH QUESTION.
IRISH LOYALISTS IN AMERICA.

An important Loyalist demonstration, said to be
the largest meeting ever held in Toronto, was held
there on Saturday afternoon. Unabated confidence
in Lord Lansdowne was expressed, and a resolution
was passed looking to the British Parliament for a
wise and just settlement of Irish questions. Mr.
O'Brien, it is said, is determined to speak at Toronto.