March 6, 1914.

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

523

The Belgian Parliament has passed a Bill estab-
lishing a nine hour working day for mechanical
workers in mines.

The inaugural meeting of the Institution of
Petroleum Technologists was held in London on
Tuesday.

Dr. Shuffiebotham continued his course of Milroy
lectures before the Boyal College of Physicians on
Tuesday on the subject of (i The Hygienic Aspect of
the Coalmining Industry.” The concluding lecture
was given last evening (Thursday).

The miners on strike in the French coalfield
returned to work on Tuesday.

At the annual meeting of the Powell Duffryn Steam
Coal Company on Tuesday, Mr. Joseph Shaw, K.C.,
registered a strong protest against recent legislation
which he stated had been extremely injurious to
trade. Mr. D. A. Thomas made similar reference
at the meeting of the Cambrian Combine a week ago.

The Bill introduced by Mr. W. Thorne which pro-
poses to limit the hours of employment to eight
hours per day, and that of Sir R. Winfrey which
intends to make further provision with regard to
education in England and Wales, have now been
read a first time.

Mr. Asquith, on Monday, in reply to Sir J. D.
Hees, said he was not aware that there was any
sufficient reason for an enquiry into the working of
the Trades Disputes Act.

A further meeting of the Joint Committee of the
Coal Conciliation Board for the Lancashire and
Cheshire area was held at Manchester on Friday
. last to continue- the negotiations on the question of
surfacemen’s wages. At the close it was announced
that there were reasonable anticipations of a friendly
settlement being arrived at. A meeting of the coal-
owners took place on Tuesday to consider the matter.
The Miners’ Federation will also have the question
before them at their meeting on the 14th inst.

A dispute between the South Staffordshire and
East Worcestershire Coalowners’ Association and the
National Society of Colliery Engine-winders and
Stokers has been satisfactorily settled. Eleven
thousand miners had given notice in connection with
the dispute, which centred round the interpretation
of the wages agreement.

Although the recent debate in the
Oil Fuel. House of Commons on the Naval
Estimates disposed of the prevailing
notion that the Admiralty is actually suffering from
a shortage of oil fuel for naval purposes, there can
be no doubt that the maintenance of the supply of
this commodity is regarded with some apprehension
in official quarters. No less than 166 oil-propelled
war vessels are now built or in building, and about
half as many more are adapted for burning either
coal or oil, and in the meantime the price of oil has
advanced materially to a point which makes liquid
fuel considerably more expensive than the best
Admiralty coal.

The whole recent policy of the Government in
regard to oil fuel has been subjected to severe
criticism. Mr. Molteno complained in the above-
mentioned debate, that Mr. Churchill had “rushed
in and ousted coal altogether in the programme of
1912-13, and almost entirely in 1913-14. He took
the position that, with our enormous supply of Welsh
coal, we were the last nation in the world which should
adopt liquid fuel. He attempted also to strengthen
his case by trying to show that oil is an inferior fuel,
storing badly, and otherwise disadvantageous in
comparison with coal.

Mr. Churchill was able to justify his policy by
laying upon the table of the House a statement from
the Chairman of the Royal Commission, which is
all the more significant as the proceedings of that
Commission are strictly confidential for military and
other reasons. It is there stated that the Commis-
sioners are unanimous in their opinion that the
advantages to be derived from the use of oil fuel, and
the imperative necessity for such use if the Fleet is
to be maintained in a condition of the highest
attainable efficiency, are conclusively established.

In the face of such a statement it is obviously
impossible to attempt to depreciate the value of oil

as a navaLfuel. It does not appear even necessary
to consider the question further from the point of view
of naval efficiency. As Sir A. Markham said, it is
quite clear that the First Lord has been perfectly
right in using oil in preference to coal. He also
thought it nonsense to think that this policy would
be to the detriment of the coal trades of the country,
founding his belief, apparently, upon the question of
the world’s supply of petroleum.

From the point of view of the coal trade, with the
interests of which we are mainly here concerned, it
is necessary to look facts in the face. The total
world’s production of liquid fuels of every kind
probably amounts to about 55 million tons, of which
47 million tons are petroleum oils. This total only
represents about 5 per cent, of the world’s coal
production. In the face of these figures it is difficult
to justify the views of those who think that the
predominant position occupied by coal as a source of
power and heat will ever be seriously threatened by
oil fuel.

These arguments, however, apply chiefly to natural
oils. We are still somewhat in the dark with
reference to the future possibilities of expansion of
petroleum output. Much is said about the vast areas
of yet unexplored ground, but against this argument
it may be said that, notwithstanding the activity in
petroleum prospecting in recent years, the United
States and Russia, the two oldest oil-producing
countries of the world, still produce 82*5 per cent, of
the world’s supply. No new country has yet shown
even a remote possibility of competing with these
two areas. Mexico, in 1912, only produced 4*7 per
cent, of the whole supply, Roumania only 3*7, Galicia
2*4, and British India only 2 per cent. Although
this is obviously no argument against the possible
discovery of new and important oilfields in the future,
yet it affords ground for a certain amount of scepticism
concerning the available oil supplies of the world.

There is, however, a danger in basing arguments
solely upon general statements, and it is interesting
in this connection to follow the course of events in
the United States, where, if anywhere, the coal trade
would be expected to suffer from the competition of
liquid fuel. Take first the case of the American
railways. The consumption of oil fuel on the rail-
ways of the United States has increased from
15.577,677 barrels in 1906 to 33,605,598 barrels in
1912. But in the latter year a reversion to the use
of coal began to take place, and is expected to con-
tinue, as a result of the increased price of oil. In
the United States Navy 15,000,000 gallons of oil
fuel were used in 1911, and about 30,000,000 gallons
in 1913. It is significant also that the bulk of the
fuel oil is burned under steam boilers, a relatively
small quantity being used in internal combustion
engines. It is also interesting to remember that the
fuel famine in Russia last year was almost entirely
due to a failure in the output of oil, which induced
the railways and other large consumers to revert to
coal. From a purely commercial point of view,
therefore, it is clearly established that for general
industrial purposes we are still a long way from
the time when natural oil will prove a serious
competitor with coal.

Is it so with manufactured oils ? That is the im-
portant point that has to be considered to-day. We
have not yet realised the full potentialities of low-
temperature distillation of carbonaceous minerals.
In an important paper read recently before the
Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland,
by Profs. Gray and Mellanby, the authors state
their belief in the practical possibilities involved in
low-temperature carbonisation, and they think that
the process can only reach its full development in the
hands of the colliery owners themselves. In this
connection we are calling attention in another
column to a new process which seems to promise to
carry us far in the direction of the profitable utilisa-
tion of slack, and other low-grade bituminous fuels
hitherto of little commercial value. The Del Monte
process is characterised mainly by its extreme
simplicity and its high yield of oils of the paraffin
series, from which motor spirit, fuel oil and other
petroleum products can be obtained. It is perhaps
too soon yet to say that this process will solve the
problem of oil fuel both for the navy, the motor car,

and industrial uses ; but the remarkable results
already achieved point to possibilities which may.
shortly materially modify the present aspect of the
fuel question. Dr. D. T. Day, chief of the United
States Geological Survey, also, has recently announced
that the Survey has discovered the secret of a
petroleum substitute destined to have an effect on
the oil markets of the world. The details of the
process have not been disclosed; but the fact
remains that investigators on both sides of the
Atlantic are engaged in solving the petroleum
problem with every confidence of ultimate, if not
immediate, success.

We are glad!to see that efforts are
The Support about to be i’made to place the
Of Railways, question ofs the support of railways
upon a more equitable basis, for the
position since the House of Lords issued judgment
in the Howley Park case in 1912 has been far from
satisfactory. Under the Railways Clauds Consolida-
tion Act of 1845 (section 78 et seq.}, if the owner,
lessee or occupier of any mines or minerals lying
under the railway, or any of [the works connected
therewith, or within the prescribedylistance, or, where
no distance shall be prescribed, 40 yards therefrom?
be desirous of working the same, such owner, lessee
or occupier must give to theicompany notice of his
intention so to do 30 days; before the commencement
of working; whereuponThe company, if it appear to
them that the working ys’Jlikely to cause damage to
the railway, may secure, byjthe payment of compen-
sation, that the mines in question shall not be worked.
If the company is unwilling to purchase, the owner
may proceed to work the-mines, the only requirement
being that he shall work them properly.

The net effect of the HowleyjPark decision was to
make it clear that the so-called mining code is not in
full substitution of the common law rights of support
possessed by the railwayfcompany; in other words,
that beyond the prescribed distance, or beyond the
distance of 40 yards, as the case may be, the railway *
company are entitled to have mines left unworked to
such an extent as may be necessary for the support
of the railway.

The consequence is that the owner of minerals can
only work in the vicinity of railways in constant
apprehension that he may be called upon to pay
heavy damages in the event of subsidence. This is one
of the many results of increased.depth of mining, for
the working of deep levels, unexploited at the time
the 1845 Act was passed, frequently causes creep
affecting the surface over a very much wider area
than the 40 yards limit.

As the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act is
virtually re-enacted on every occasion that a railway
company goes to Parliament for powers to construct
new railways, it is not logical, if the dictum of the
House of Lords is to remain unchallenged, that this
obsolete condition should be perpetuated, and the
same fact gives the opportunity to press for the
insertion in each new Bill of terms calculated to meet
the case. One method would be to extend the
present limit of 40 yards, but we rather prefer the
proposal that in each special Act the distance should
be prescribed, and that beyond it the railway
company should have no right to support, unless
they purchase and pay for such right before the
working of the minerals begins.

It is with the object of securing some such
provision that several important colliery companies
and the Mining Association of Great Britain have
entered petitions against a number of private Bills to
be considered during the present Session. There
should be no great difficulty, however, in coming, in
every individual case, to an equitable arrangement by
negotiation, and this, no doubt, is what will happen.
In several respects it is a distinct advantage to
render the old provision more elastic—an advantage
equally to the colliery proprietor and the railway
company. We are encouraged in this view by the
observations recently made by Mr. Perkin, the
mining engineer to the Great Central Railway Com-
pany. He said u There seems no reason to doubt,
bearing in mind the ‘ community of interest ’ between
railway companies and colliery companies, that an
amicable and equitable solution will be found.”