The Sun.
London, England, 1865-05-23 00:00:00

THE MET ALLIFEROUS MINES BILL.

Lord KINNAIRD, in moving the second reading of this
bill, said that he did not propose to include iron mines
which were not open to the objections against other mines
in this bill. He did not think that the subject could re-
ceive the necessary discussion in the present session of
Parliament, and therefore ho did not feel justified in pro-
ceeding with the bill at the present stage of the session.
Ho complained that the Government did not treat him
fairly in not giving him support in regard to this
bill, but leaving him in an extremity, without
intimating to him previously the course they would adopt.
He had been taunted with taking up a subject upon which
ho had no information, but he denied that such assertion was
true at present, for, however ignorant he might have been
on it, at present ho was in possession of information derived
from authentic sources which enabled him to deal with the
subject practically. He repeated the statement ho had
previously made as to the inefficiency of the arrangements
for the working in metalliferous mines, anti cited the state-
ments in support of his arguments which appeared in the
report of the commission appointed to inquire into the
subject. It appeared that the celebrated firm of Messrs.
Taylor opposed the bill, and while ho admitted the general
efficiency of the arrangements made by that firm in regard
to their mines, ho was aware of the fact that oven they
were open to objections in regard to those defects
in reference to the condition of miners, which the bill
proposed to remedy. He concluded by moving formally
that the order for the second reading of the bill should be
discharged.

Earl GRANVILLE vindicated the course of the Go-
vernment in respect to this bill. The Royal Commissioners,
upon whose report this measure was professedly founded,
did not recommend any legislation on the subject, and he
thought that it would have been quite premature to do so
in the present session, when they considered the enormous
value of the property that would be affected, and the feel-
ings entertained upon the subject both in the northern and
southern mining districts.
Lord VIVIAN characterised thebill under consideration
as one of the most mischievous that had over been intro-
duced into Parliament, and severely censured the course
taken by the noble lord (Lord Kinnaird) in circulating a
handbill through the mining districts, calling for the sup-
port of the working miners. It was calculated, if it was
not intended, to produce ill-feeling between employer and
employed, although, happily, it had nothadthat effect. The
noble lord said that this bill was founded on the report of
the Royal Commissioners ; but the fact was—and of this
the noble lord was well aware—that his colleagues on that
commission wore wholly opposed to legislation.
Lord KINNAIRD denied that the noble lord was justified
in saying that the whole of the Royal commission were
opposed to the bill. There had boon no meeting of the
Royal commission to consider the subject, and ho did not
think that any one knew their opinions as a body. He had
addressed the handbill referred to the working miners, be-
cause he wished them to know what the recommendations
of the Royal commission wore, nor did he shrink from the
responsibility of that step.
After a few words from Earl GRANVILLE,

LordPORTMAN said that a more unwise step was never
taken by a noble lord who had served upon a commission
than to bring in a bill without the sanction of his colleagues.
It was perfectly unnecessary to agitate on this subject, be-
cause the owners of mines were most anxious to do every-
thing they could to protect the lives and health of their
workmen. Tho miners of Cornwall utterly objected to be
legislated for by the noble lord, who did not understand
tho subject, or to have inspectors sent down from the Board
of Trade, to teach them how to carry on their business.
Tho motion was then agreed to, and the bill was with-
drawn.