June 27, 1913.

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

1389

a very long list of statutes, and found that the words
“ wilful default ” or “ wilfully ” were nearly always the
terms used. A man ought not to be prosecuted and
fined in a matter in connection with which possibly his
mind did not go ; but there must be something in a
quasi criminal prosecution of this sort analogous to the
mens rea which would find in dealing with criminal
offences “ wilful ” meant that it was done intentionally.
To use a definition of Lord Russell “ that the act was
done deliberately and intentionally, not by accident
and inadvertence so that the mind goes with it; neglect
is the want of reasonable care.” The distinction had
been very frequently drawn between negligence and
wilful misconduct.

Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis referred to section 11
of the Act which provides for an enquiry into the com-
petency of a manager as to whether he ought to main-
tain or forfeit his certificate on a representation as to
gross negligence. He also quoted special rules in
Northumberland, South Wales and Lancashire.

Mr. Pope said there was a vast difference between
these and having a proposal that any negligent act
affecting property, without specifying it, should lead
to a fine or imprisonment.

The Referee suggested striking out the words
“ or any property,” and then inserting the word
“ negligently,” because there was something in what
Mr. Pope said, that it would be an absurdity to haul- a
boy up before the magistrates for breaking a window,
even though he did it negligently.

Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis thought it should be
that if he did any wilful damage to property, there
ought to be a remedy. If he negligently or wilfully did
any act which might endanger life or limb there might
be a remedy. He agreed there was something in what
Mr. Pope said that the “ negligently ” should be rather
affecting life than property.

Mr. Tryon1 suggested they should strike out the
words “ or property,” and then put at the end “ wilfully
do any damage to property.”

Mr. Smillie mentioned that the common law of the
country protected property.

The Referee said it only protected it in this way,
that it gave a remedy to the owner of the property in
damages against the person who did the mischief. It
was very little use giving a remedy against a young
man who had nothing to pay with. There were a great
many provisions in this Act of Parliament which were
not enforceable by the common law and were only
enforceable against men who worked in mines.

Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis also quoted section 34,
subsection (2) of the Act, which provides for negligence
again in the case of the upkeep of lamps.

Mr. Smillie urged that the provision with reference
to the damage to the lamp was not for the purpose of
recompensing the employer, but because the damage to
the lamp led to danger in the mine.

The Referee said he thought the reference to
property might be omitted from the rule altogether.
Let the rule read in this way: “No person employed in
or about the mine shall negligently or wilfully do
anything likely to endanger life or limb in the
mine or negligently or wilfully omit to do anything
necessary for the safety of the mine or of the
persons employed therein.” That was confined
to any personal injuries and left out property
altogether. The remedy for injury done to property
should stand on the common law. The reading was
accepted by all parties.

Rule 23.

This rule is as follows : “ Every workman receiving in
or about the mine any personal injury caused by an
explosion of gas or dust, or any explosive, or by elec-
tricity or overwinding, or any other special cause
specified by an order under section 80 (1) (ii.) of the Act,
or any personal injury causing him to cease work, shall,
before leaving the mine, if he is able to do so, or if not
as soon as possible, report the same to one of the
officials.”

After a clerical amendment inserting “ (iii.),” for “ (ii.),”
Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis proposed after “ injury ”
to leave out “ causing him to cease work.” He said they
suggested that this rule should apply to any workman
receiving any personal injury from the causes stated.
He should do what the rule required him to do, whether
the injury caused him to cease work or not. The most
trifling injuries, unless immediately attended to, very
often led to blood-poisoning, and a very serious ailment,
and possible death of the person injured.

Mr. Williams quoted some figures issued by the
Indemnity Society of South Wales. There wa s, he said, a
very large number of mining accidents, such, for instance,
as a man pricking his hand or his limb with the point of a
pick, which were not serious enough to cause him to
leave his work, and he went on working without it being
attended to; he went home, and probably it did not get
treated, and blood-poisoning set in. In 1911 there were
25 deaths due to accidents which were not reported by
the men—alleged to be due to accidents—and no report
was made when the men left, because the men did not
cease work at the time. Seven of those were due to
blood-poisoning. In 1910 there were 21 deaths, 13 due
to blood-poisoning; in 1909, 40, of which eight were due
to blood-poisoning. They contended in the interests of
the men even more than of the owners that these
accidents, however trivial, should be reported at the
time, and treated at the mine.

Mr. Pope said the intention of the rule from the Home
Office point of view was that all accidents with regard to
which it was required that a return should be sent to
the inspector should be brought to the notice of the
manager. He was with Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis in what
he said with reference to the difficulties under the Work-
men’s Compensation Act, in which an owner or manager
frequently found himself confronted with a claim in
connection with which he had had no opportunity of notice,

or getting any particulars, because the injury at the
time had not been noticed, and subsequently something
developed. Their view was that those were not properly
to be governed by a regulation of this kind. On the
other hand, the Miners’ Federation practically said,
report nothing. Accordingly they had taken a middle
course.

Mr. Smillie said these regulations were becoming
anti-workmen’s compensation regulations, and were
inspired by a desire to defeat the claims of the
workmen. He did not mean the Home Office regula-
tions, but the proposed amendments in many cases.
About 35 per cent, of the workmen in the mines of the
country received personal injury of a more or less serious
nature. It would be admitted by practical men who had
been underground that three or four times in one day
they had received personal injury and had never
reported it and never required to report it. Under the
proposed regulation, a scratched finger would require to
be reported. The employers were at the present time in
a position to defend themselves if they were prejudiced
by long delay in their defences by the fact that a
workman had not given reasonable notice of an
accident.

The Referee said he did not much like the expres-
sion “ cease work ” ; it was too indefinite. He should
prefer: “ Any personal injury causing him to absent
himself from his work.” He did not approve of the
suggestion that a man should be bound to give notice
although the injury did not cause him to cease work.

Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis pointed out that they
were obliged to have in the mine first-aid treatment for
accidents, stretchers, ambulances, and other things, for
the purpose, and also a box containing things for
treating slight accidents; and there should be some
obligation upon the man to use this for his own sake,
and that however trivial the accident might be he should
report it, and go and get a dressing for it there and then,
which might prevent a serious illness afterwards.

The wording suggested by the Referee was adopted,
the rule reading as follows :—“ Or any personal injury
causing him to absent himself from his work shall as
soon as possible report the same to one of the officials,”
with the addition at the end: “ and if required by the
official shall forthwith proceed to the appointed place
for first-aid treatment.”

The proceedings were then adjourned until the
following day.

Rule 17.

On the resumption on the 19th inst., Mr. Pope said
they had seen Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis and Mr.
Smillie on the previous day, and the following words
were suggested to take the place of the printed regula-
tion :—“ The onsetter at any entrance into a shaft which
is provided with a fence not worked by the cage or
cages shall not begin to remove the fence until either
the cage is stopped at the entrance or has reached such
a position in the shaft that by the time the fence is
removed the cage will be opposite the entrance, and shall
close the fence immediately he has signalled the cage
away.”

Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis said he would like to
bring before his lordship a case in which the machinery
was cut away from the fence where, if that rule were
applied, he was told that it would restrict the output by
one-half. For that purpose he wanted to call Mr.
Chambers, the general manager of the Denaby and
Cadeby Main Collieries.

Mr. Pope said the proper procedure was to move for
a special regulation under section 87 of the Act.

Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis said it could not be
done in that way. The Act could not be altered by a
special rule.

Mr. Pope said the effect of Mr. Chambers’ suggestion
was that the Act should not apply to his collieries, and
the Referee said he could not make any such regula-
tion as that.

Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis said what he wanted
to put before his lordship was the method which was
adopted, and which, he thought, should not be interfered
with by this clause. He was only asking that that
system might not apply in a particular case. The excep-
tions would apply to a great many more collieries in
time, and there were some more now.

Mr. Chambers was then called, and stated that at his
collieries he had adopted what he believed to be the
most up-to-date method at the bottom of the shaft.
They used a fence now, but it was a question of the
method of application when it was used. If this fence
was in position when the cage was coming into the shaft,
they could not load so much coal. There were auxiliary
cages operating independently of the winding cage.
While the cage was travelling in the shaft, these were
loaded with trucks. If there was a fence, they could
not put the tubs on while the cage was travelling in the
shaft, but they would have to wait until the cage got to
the bottom. The cages had to be loaded and unloaded,
and it would reduce the capacity of the winding arrange-
ments by one-half, because it took 50 seconds, all the
time the cage was travelling in the shaft, to load and
unload the auxiliary cages.

Mr. Smillie thought it was just exactly at the time
when the cage was ascending and descending when they
required the fence there.

Mr. Pope thought if there was a difficulty presented
in the matter,it could be dealt with under section 87 (1).
With regard to Mr. Chambers’ contention that he should
not have a gate there during the winding, it was not
merely a case of 50 seconds while the cage was travelling
in the shaft, but there were frequent intervals. The
view taken by the Home Office experts was that there
was not an insuperable difficulty in dealing with the
matter.

Mr. Redmayne said there were several similar
arrangements in operation throughout the country, and
it was a very expeditious way of loading and unloading
the cages. If Mr. Chambers could arrange to have an

arrangement of fixed fences, there would be no difficulty
at all.

In answer to Mr. Tryon, who said that Lord Dudley
was just putting in exactly the same machinery and
arrangements, Mr. Redmayne stated the view that a
bar across the road, on either side of which tubs could
pass, would be deemed a sufficient fence within the
meaning of the Act. It would have to be a bar that
would prevent anybody entering the shaft. It should
be a fence that would allow of the carrying out of this
system of loading, but the tubs would have to be of
such a height as to allow them to pass under it.

Mr. Tryon said their tubs of coal were 4 ft. 6 in.
high, whilst Mr. Chambers said that, in his collieries,
they were about 4 it. high, with coal, and if the fence
was 4 ft. 6 in. they could manage with that.

The Referee said “ securely fenced ” must mean
to prevent anybody, except a person who made up his
mind to fall through it, from tumbling through it.

Mr. Blackeit pointed out that there was nothing
to prevent anybody rushing in front of a railway train
coming into the station except their commonsense or a
porter stopping them. They were far safer than a railway
station was, because they had not so much space. The
entrance of the cage was only a few yards wide, and
their men could prevent a foolish person rushing into
these cages.

The Referee said that, according to section 37, they
had got to fence. They proposed to fence, but such a
fence, he understood, as was not high enough to prevent
a boy from walking straight under it and falling down.

Mr. Blackett said it did not follow that that was
the only means of dealing with the matter. It seemed
to him that the Act gave them other power. They were
allowed to remove the fence for their operations.
Obviously, if they did not remove the fence they could
not put coal into the cage at all. If proper precautions
were taken they could do that for that purpose.

Mr. Smillie suggested that a thin steel guard could be
invented which would properly fence the auxiliary cages,
but Mr. Blackett said they had not succeeded in
making such a satisfactory gate as that. They had tried
to make gates like that for their ordinary cages, and they
found that they could not keep them working. Mr.
Chambers added that if they put them too near the
cage there was a chance of their catching the cage and
of having an accident. They must prevent any oscilla-
tion of the cage catching the fence.

The Referee asked what “ other operations ” meant.
He said he thought it meant when the coal was being
put in.

Mr. Pope said it meant special operations — not
necessarily repairs, but something of a temporary
character.

The Referee said he thought they might pay too
high a price for safety, and such a price as to make
business impracticable.

Mr. Pope said that was not what they intended to do,
nor was it what the Act of Parliament intended.
Section 87 (1) gave power to deal with the matter by a
special regulation.

Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis pointed out that as
to special regulations, if the Home Secretary liked, he
could get the matter into his own hands, and not allow
a regulation at all. He did not think there would be
much likelihood of their getting a special regulation for
providing what they wanted.

Mr. Redmayne, asked by his Lordship, said the
matter could be met by a special regulation, and the
Home Office would be only too willing to meet it.

The Referee said his own opinion was, that this objec-
tion really was an attempt to get from him a special
regulation, and a special regulation, in his opinion, was
not a matter that he had anything to do with at all. If the
general regulation was impracticable in a particular
coalmine, then it seemed to him that the Act provided
for a special regulation to be approved by the Secretary
of State. It was not his fault that the Act left it to be
finally decided by the Secretary of State. No. 17 should
be in the form handed up.

Rule 18.

Mr. Pope, in reference to this rule, said they had
agreed this form of words: “nor refuse to comply with
the directions of the person in charge.”

Rule 19.

Mr. Tryon again raised the question of exempting
from the application of Rule 19 mines working the thick
coal of the South Staffordshire district.

At the outset, the Referee said he did not think
this came within his last ruling at all, as it was dealing
now with a class of mines, and he thought it was
competent for him to say that that this particular rule
ought not to apply to a particular mine with a seam of
coal 30 ft. thick.

Mr. Tryon then referred once more to the difficulty
of ventilating the workings in the thick coal. He said
that, in order to prevent the coal from coming down
before it ought to come down and with a view of safety,
what were called spurns were left—that is to say, coal
ungot, about every 6, 7 or 8 feet along the whole of the
trough—and th* se spurns were only removed at the last.
He asked Mr. Redmayne how it was possible to take a
pipe to clear out more than the first of those intervals,
and how they were going to get it out of the next one.

Mr. Redmayne replied that if the place was so
dangerous that all these spurns were full of gas the pit
should not be worked under those conditions. He had
never seen a pipe in a roof, because it was so seldom
that gas occurred in these spurns that it was not
necessary. He had seen a bratticed slot used for
clearing out such a place.

Mr. Hughes here took up the cross-examination and
explained the method of working.

Mr. Redmayne put in a list, giving the number of