J une 20 1913. THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN. 1347 be set, but it was not said anywhere by whom that was to be done under the manager’s directions. Section 50 did not apply to South Staffordshire even, and there was no other section that said that the work* man was to do it. It was their practice for the work- man to do the timbering as part of his contract. If it was not his duty, as it was not in Durham, the rule would not apply, because the rule began with the words : “ When the work of erecting the supports of the roof and sides of the working place was done by the work- man employed therein.” If he did not do it the rules did not apply, but where he did it the rule should apply. There was no other provision under the Act or the regulations which would make him, and it was all important to the manager who was, under section 90, liable to a penalty if the rules were not carried out, that the workman should feel at least that he was under a pe alty, because he would not have broken any regulation whatever unless there was some regulation inserted here which he was bound to carry out, and the one necessary thing for the safety of their mines was that the workman should be under such a penalty as would ensure him making himself acquainted with the rule and doing the work. Mr. Smillie said that this did not provide that the workman was to do the timbering. It said where they did the timbering. They complained that the Home Office had not put any regulation laying it down that the workman must do the timbering. They were holding a person who had charge of the place responsible for the safety of every other workman in the place; it was a most outrageous thing to attempt to do to hold the person in charge of the place responsible for the safety of the others. There might be six or seven men in the place; and they might be 15, 20 or 30 yards from each other in one longwalled place, and it was proposed here that the person in charge of the place should be responsible for the safety of the others. If he were responsible for the safety of the others in that place, and an accident took place, he would be held responsible for the accident having taken place. They did not wish a responsibility of that kind to be placed on the shoulders of their workmen. It was taken for granted that in certain parts of the country the workmen were responsible for doing the timbering when it was in their contract price, but there might be six or seven men working in one place, and none of them had charge of that working-place as such. It was a very common thing in Scotland to have six, seven or eight men working in one place. One clause proposed to hold one particular workman responsible for all the men in the place, and the next clause held each of the workmen that might be in the place responsible for every other workman. It was exactly what they could not get if the miners were to be consulted in the matter. Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis thought it was a question of wording. He thought they should hear the views of the National Association of Colliery Managers on this. Mr. G-. A. Lewis said he would like to say that the colliery manager was in a very responsible position, and the colliery manager did not want to have any techni- calities about these rules. Although it was possible under a rule, which the Home Office had mentioned, for the colliery manager to give directions and instructions, yet they thought it was extremely desirable that no* details of instructions should be given in these rules, otherwise it would be necessary for the colliery manager to draw up a code of rules for the protection of all the workmen which would have no legal force in themselves at all. They preferred to have more specifically laid down what the workmen should have to do. Verbal directions under that rule would not be satisfactory, and it would be necessary for him to draw up a code of rules for his workmen which would have no legal significance. They desired to have it distinctly laid down that the workman should understand that he was to a very great extent responsible in the same way that the manager himself was. Sir Thomas Ratciffe-Ellis said managers repre- senting the Mining Association from different parts of the kingdom were present, but he thought it was admitted that, except in Northumberland and Durham, it was the duty of the workman to timber his place; it was a part of his contract. He was told that in North- umberland and Durham—though by a different system— it was the duty of the workman also to see that his place was timbered properly in the absence of the deputy. It was a part of his contract, but they did not want their remedy to be in the county court for a brpach of contract. That was not the way to enforce discipline. It was essential to his safety, and as these rules were for the safety as well as the discipline of the men, it ought to form one of the code of rules that he had to obey and that he was liable for penalties. If it was a question of words, that was a matter they could discuss. Mr. Pope wished to make clear the position they took up in connection with this matter. This subsection (b) was with reference to fixing the responsibility upon the workman. That was the idea. What they said was that that responsibility was already sufficiently fixed by the Act. The Referee said that what startled him was this, that when the work of erecting the supports was done by the workman employed in the working place, he should be responsible, not only for the due examination, proper timbering and packing, and safety of his working place, but that he should be responsible for the safety of every person employed with him in his working place, so that if the man slipped on the ground and broke his leg there was a responsibility under this rule. Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis said that was the South Wases rule; he believed it had been copied out of the rule. He agreed there was a good deal in what Mr. Smillie said, that the man should not be responsible for the safety of the whole of the persons, but if he was responsible for the timbering, there was a moral, if not a legal, responsibility upon him to see that it was so timbered that nobody could be hurt. The Referee asked Mr. Smillie whether he would object to this rule, assuming that the words, “ And for the safety of every person employed with him in his working place,” were struck out of it. If these words were struck out, the rule would read : “ When the work of erecting the supports of the roof and sides of the working place is done by the workman employed therein”—apparently in some places the workman does it and in other places the workman does not do it, but when it is done by the workman employed, “ he shall be responsible during his shift”—for what?—“for the due examination, proper timbering and safety of the working place.” Mr. Smillie remarked that the packing was a different thing from timbering altogether. The packing of the place in Scotland was not done by the men at the coal face, but it was done by a different set of day wage men —rippers, who did the packing of the place at night time. Mr. Redmayne, H.M. Chief Inspector of Coal- mines, said that the custom with regard to timbering of places was in Northumberland and Durham as Mr. Blackett had explained, but their difficulty at the Home Office in accepting the sugges- tions was that the timbering over a great part of the country was done by the workman, and he might be made responsible for the timbering, but in many cases the packing was done by different people altogether, and therefore he should not to be responsible for the packing. Furthermore, in some parts of the country where the work of hewing the coal and the timbering was done by persons employed, at the same time at the face there might be a very great length of face, 40 or even 80 yards, and there would be a number of persons employed therein. Who was to be responsible of that lot for the timbering ? One man might be doing the timbering one part of the day, and another man might be doing the timbering another part of the day. There might be eight, nine, or 10 people there, and it would be impossible to determine who was responsible for the timbering in that case. He would say that the workman already felt responsible for the safety of himself and his fellow workmen, and he doubted whether a rule could be enforced that would have any better effect. That difficulty had been met in the Act by making an inspec- tion of the working places during the course of the man’s employment—two inspections during the shift by the fireman. They were constantly inspecting working places, and the Act of 1911 had increased the amount of inspection very greatly indeed. They were met with this difficulty that the responsibility of seeing that the places were properly inspected must be put upon somebody, and it was put upon the firemen. If there was one man employed in a working place and that one man was doing the hewing and the timbering, the suggestion could be applied, but not in the case he had mentioned. There might be indiscriminate timbering. He referred to one case in Northumberland where they had a rule which specified that the props should be placed at a not greater distance than 6 ft. apart. He went into the working-place and found that they were at a greater distance than 6 ft. apart. He brought the man up before the magistrates, and he was fined for that. There was a specific duty of placing the props at a specified distance, and there was one man whose definite duty it was to do that, and that was met by the Act as it stood. Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis said that in 1910 there were 55 prosecutions for neglecting to set sprags and 37 prosecutions for neglecting to set props. In 53 of the first there was a conviction, and in 35 of the 37 prosecutions for neglecting to set props there were con- victions. The information was laid that they were charged with violating special rule number so and so. There was a special rule that provided that. If this rule were in that form, and they did not set timber, and the roof came down, they would be charged with violating this special rule. Unless there was a rule of this sort, there was no rule under which to charge the man. The summons was made out from the information, that was served upon the workman, the inspector or owner could prosecute, and very often the inspector said to the owner: “ Unless you prosecute I shall prosecute you for breach of the discipline of the place.” There was no difficulty now about carrying it out. It was suggested that section 74 would enable the manager to provide for all this by making rules himself. The Referee said that Rule 5, which they were dealing with now, directed what the man should do. The man should carefully examine his mine at a certain time. The amendment or addition made him respon- sible for doing it. What it meant exactly he did not know. By “ responsible ” it was meant, as he understood, to make him liable to be prosecuted if he did not do it. Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis remarked that Rule 47 of the Lancashire rules said : “ Where the timbering of the working place is done by the workmen employed therein, every miner shall by himself or his drawer take his own timber and other materials from the far end siding or the place whence he or his drawer takes away his empty tub.” The Yorkshire Rule No. 100 said . “ The miners must build good pack walls and set a suffi- cient quantity of props and bars for safely securing the roof and sides of their own working place, and add to them or renew them when necessary, or when told by the manager, under-manager, or deputy.” The South Wales rule, which is No. 171, said:—“He shall keep his working place safe for working therein, set all timbering necessary for that purpose, and place props and sprags in accordance with the 22nd general rule, and with the directions given for that purpose from time to time by the manager or the fireman.” There was no word “ responsibility ” there, he agreed; but what he had found was this, that in every one of these rules there was some rule putting upon the man expressly the responsibility of keeping safe the working place. On the second day Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis handed in a clause on Rule 5, to which the Home Office and Mr. Smillie had agreed. This amended clause was in substitution of (6), (c). (d) and (e , and No. 5 now read as follows :—“ Every workman engaged at the face, or in stonework, or in timbering, shall carefully examine his working place before commencing work and before recommencing work after the firing of a shot, and after any interruption of work during the shift. Where several persons are working together and one of them is in charge, the examinations required by this regulation shall be made by the man in charge.” It was now proposed to add this: “ Where the work of erecting the supports of the roof and sides of working places is done by the workmen employed therein, it shall be the duty of the workmen to carry out the requirements of section 50 of the Act, and to comply with the directions contained in the notice required by that section.” Section 50 was: “Where props or props and bars or chocks are used to support the roof at the working face, the roof under which any work of getting coal or filling tubs is carried on, shall be systematically and adequately supported.” The object of this additional rule was to make it the duty of the workman who was at work in the place to do what was required by section 50. This was adopted. THE CONCEALED COALFIELD OF YORKSHIRE AND NOTTINGHAMSHIRE.* By Walcot Gibson, D.Sc. (Continued from page 1278.) Middle Coal Measures.—In the succeeding sub-division of the middle coal measures the sandstones almost invariably contain much clayey material. Beds of pure sand rock, when they occur, either thin out rapidly from the centre of maximum deposition, or numerous inter- calations of shale bands so change their character that they become unrecognisable as individual beds. In texture, hardness and composition the sandstones of different horizons closely resemble each other. As a whole, therefore, they form unreliable guides in the MALTBY DINNINOTON ManaCt ofd Marini Bad '’