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 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 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 and the complacency to deny that demand and dispute it with him.