October 15, 1915.

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

787

MINING INSTITUTE OF SCOTLAND.

A general meeting of the Mining Institute of Scotland was
held on Saturday in the Heriot-Watt College, Edinburgh, Mr.
D. M. Mowat, president, in the chair.

The following gentlemen were admitted to membership :—
Messrs. Robt. H. Dundas, Indian Collieries Syndicate
Limited, Jamadoba, India; James Mason, colliery manager,
Jealgora Collieries, Jamadoba, India; David Todd, colliery
manager, Auchlochan Collieries, Coalburn, Lanarkshire; and
John Samson, coal master, Burnfoot, Sanquhar.

Resident versus Non-Resident Brigades.

Discussion was resumed on the paper previously read by
Mr. Henry Briggs, mining lecturer, Heriot-Watt College,
Edinburgh, on “ The Resident Brigade System versus the
System of Non-Resident Brigades.”

Mr. James Hamilton, Glasgow, said he thought the
author had stated his case from his point of view in an
excellent way. Certainly he had been able to pick out a
good many joints in the armour of the new system. Theoretic-
ally, it was his (Mr. Hamilton’s) opinion that there was not
much doubt that the newer system • was the better. He
thought the men of the brigades under the new system ought
to be trained so as to be able to find their W’ay in a mine
from a reading of plans at sight. In his view, it would be a
most useful exercise for the members of a team that they
should be given the plans of the workings of a colliery, and
asked to find their way about these to a certain point with-
out any assistance. Of course, it would be necessary to
secure that the members of a brigade did not wander off the
proper road in a colliery and get into danger in consequence.

Mr. G. L. Kerr, Glasgow, remarked that there were one
or two phrases in the paper which were not quite clear to
him, and he would be glad if Mr. Briggs could elucidate these
points. For example, he did not know what was meant in
the following statement : “ The most obvious drawback in
the new system is that a resident brigade cannot hope to
equal a local brigade in knowledge of the workings.” What
workings did the author refer to there? Did he mean the
workings that each brigade w^as acquainted with, or did he
refer to the workings that brigades might be called to at
other collieries. With regard to the type of man who could
be employed, Mr. Briggs made a point that under the resi-
dent system any individual, whether he had any experience
of mining or not, could be engaged. He thought, as a
parallel instance, he might remark that if a colliery manager
or owner desired to employ a fireman or oversman, he would
take good care to ensure that he knew something about
underground workings. In the same way he did not think
anyone would employ a man as a member of a rescue team
unless he knew something about mining. Personally, he
thought it was rather a pity that Mr. Briggs had not given
them some details as to the cost of the old system.

Mr. Robert McLaren, H.M. inspector of mines, said he
was disposed to agree with Mr. Kerr that a sufficient time
had not elapsed to afford them a fair idea as to whether the
new system was better than the old. He took strong excep-
tion to the remark made in the paper by Mr. Briggs that it
was possible for others than miners to become members of a
permanent brigade. He could scarcely think any manager
would be so foolish as to employ as a member of a rescue
brigade one who had no knowledge of mining or mining
operations.

The President said he believed that Mr. J. T. Forgie had,
at the last meeting of the institute, covered all the points
he could have urged in defence of the new system. There
was a good deal to be said for each system under certain
special circumstances. With regard to the point that had
been raised about an ability to read plans, he might say
that they intended in the Lanarkshire area, once the brigades
were all trained, to adopt some course of training on these
lines. Brigades would be taken out to a colliery and would
be asked to find their way about the workings from the
colliery plan which would be handed to them. The resident
brigade system had the advantage that the members of the
team were constantly under the eye of the instructor—they
were, in point of fact, his pupils. A record was kept of each
individual’s work, of his behaviour under training, and the
instructor was thereby able to know in what respect this man
was reliable, or unreliable, as the case might be. The com-
mitfee of the Lanarkshire Coal Masters’ Association
appointed to enquire into this question approached the whole
subject with absolutely open minds. They visited many dis-
tricts, and they saw both systems. The system which the
committee had originally in view was, in his opinion, better
than the other two, but unfortunately they had not been per-
mitted to carry it into operation. Their intention was at
first that the rescue station at Coatbridge should be the only
station for the whole of the Lanarkshire area. Their proposal
was, further, to have a sufficient number of men under train-
ing during a series of three eight-hour shifts in the course
of the 24 hours as would have ensured that, no matter when
a call might come, thoroughly fresh and completely equipped
rescuers would be at hand. He was disposed to admit that
in the Lothians possibly the better system had been selected
for that district. He held a similar view in regard to the
scheme chosen in Lanarkshire, from which it would be
deduced that, in his view, he recognised that there was room
for both systems Much depended on the local circum-
stances and conditions.

Mr. Henry Briggs, in replying to the discussion, said it
was necessary again to point out that the only test of efficiency
which was of value was that made in face of actual condi-
tions underground. A resident team might be able to show
special dexterity with apparatus in its own gallery, but all
that was merely ornamental unless it could beat the local
team on its own ground, namely, in the pit. Only one critic
(Mr. J. T. Forgie) attempted to meet his contention that,
after having once been trained, the method most likely to
maintain efficiency was that which best ensured physical
fitness. Mr. Forgie’s view was that the practice a resident
brigade got in the gallery was as well able to maintain
physical condition as work underground. It was to be
regretted that, in support of this contention, Mr. Forgie did
not give a time-table showing exactly how the average day of
a member of the resident brigade was filled up. In default
of such a table he (Mr. Briggs) might be 'allowed to express
doubt whether two hours in a gallery was the equivalent of
eight hours in the pit. It was sufficient to indicate that the
case for the new system rested on doubtful premises, and to
add that while the other system had proved efficient in prac-
tice, the new arrangement had not yet done so. Coming now
to another argument, that wdaile the brigades of the original
system must be made up from miners, the regulations applying
to the resident brigade system allowed others to join these
brigades. The weakness here did not need enlarging upon
in his opinion. The supporters of the new system could not

be brought to fight at close quarters on this.point. They all
avoided the question with the exception of Mr. Forgie, and he
neatly evaded the general issue by talking of the good inten-
tions of the Lanarkshire committee, which no one who had
seen the splendid station at Coatbridge could for a moment
doubt. He believed, however, that if a census were to be
taken of the members of resident brigades throughout Britain
it would be found that the majority of them had not been
drawn from the mining community. On the other hand, the
resident brigades were recruited—as Mr. Steele, H.M.
inspector of mines, had pointed out—from the best men at
the collieries. One other point in favour of the older system
had also been inadequately answered. It was to the effect
that a resident brigade could not hope to know the workings
of a mine as well as a colliery brigade. Mr. McLuckie pro-
posed that the resident brigade should pay visits to the mines
to become acquainted with them, and especially to mines
where there existed danger of spontaneous combustion or
explosion. The suggestion was a valuable one, but such occa-
sional visits could not hope to make the corps as familiar
with all parts of the workings as was the colliery brigade.
If those of the “ new ” persuasion would fairly face this
question, they would, he believed, find they were led into a
dilemma, out of which the only escape was to admit their
system faulty in one very important respect. On the question
of reserves, the Lanarkshire scheme, with its numerous
affiliated stations, ensures that, in the event of a disaster
involving the continuous service of trained men during several
days, a sufficiency of reserves would be available. At the
same time, it seemed to him that the matter should be argued
from the general standpoint, and not merely from that of one
favoured district. Being merely a matter of arithmetic, it
was impossible to deny that the original system in all cases
provided with greater reserves. In the final matter—that of
cost—the advantage appeared to be 'admitted by all parties to
lie on the side of the old system. Mr. James Roberts advo-
cated the station brigade system “ in those districts where a
limited number of men were employed.” Unhappily, this
was just the case where that system was most expensive and
least justifiable. During the course of the discussion an
advantage was claimed for the new system which was not
mentioned in the paper, namely, that it relieved the colliery
manager of trouble and responsibility. He thought it could
be admitted that it slightly reduced his trouble if he was
within the 10 miles radius. It was easier to arrange for,
say, three men to absent themselves and go to the station for
training than for 10 or 15. It was also true that the wastage
of the smaller number was likely to be less than that of the
larger. Personally, he was glad that this point had been
raised, because it seemed to him that it was the only advan-
tage which the new system could claim with any degree of
certitude.

The discussion was closed, and the author thanked.

Attachment to Self-Contained Rescue Apparatus.

The discussion was thereafter continued on the paper by
Mr. Michael McCormick, instructor at the Heriot-Watt
Rescue Station, Edinburgh, on “An Auxiliary and Outfit for
Attachment to Self-contained Rescue Apparatus.”

Mr. Joseph Parker, B.Sc., Cowdenbeath, in the course
of. a communicated contribution, said within the limits
imposed by the supply of oxygen and the exhaustion of the
purifier, occasions undoubtedly would arise in practice where
it would be most desirable that either a person to be rescued,
or a member of the rescue brigade whose own apparatus
might have failed, should be able to breathe in parallel
with another from an apparatus in good order. That, how-
ever, two persons could in an emergency save themselves
on a supply of only two litres of oxygen per minute was an
open question. In such an emergency neither party was
likely to preserve that calm which was necessary to get
on with a low consumption of oxygen; and in any case
that state of mind would be much more likely to be attained
if the supply could be increased for a little when the need
for more oxygen was felt. A point that directly applied
to Mr. McCormick’s device was that of two men breathing
a common and very limited atmosphere. Could the purifier
be relied upon to kill all the germs in the air which passed
through it? Unless a temperature of about 180degs. Fahr,
was reached, heat alone cannot be relied upon to destroy
the germs. Probably, however, the destructive action of
the caustic alkali would ensure the destruction of all germs,
and some of the members might be able to speak with
authority on this matter.	*

Subject to a reply from the author, who was not present,
the discussion was closed.

Lining Shafts with Concrete Z-Blocks.

The discussion on Mr. Marcel Gillieaux’s paper was
adjourned till next meeting.

The Education and Training of the Mining Engineer.

The President said that arising out of the discussion on
Mr. R. W. Dron’s paper, Mr. Henry Briggs had been in
communication with the Board of Mining Examinations on a
point of some difficulty, and had now received an interesting
reply.

Mr. Briggs explained that the rules for the conduct of
mining examinations stated that in the case of mining
apprentices the greater portion of the practical experience,
that was of the five years or seven years, as the case might
be, must be gained either in actual practical work at the
colliery face and other parts of underground work, or in
direct supervision of such work, or in a mixture of the two.
The difficulty had been, and it had existed ever since these
rules were promulgated, to know the exact period covered
by the words “ the greater portion of the practical experi-
ence.” It was a matter which concerned apprentices to
mining engineers, and the subject was taken up a year
or two ago by a number of mining engineers in Glasgow
and Edinburgh. One would imagine from the plain English
of the statement—but, of course, they could not accept that
sort of reading for a Home Office dictum—that “ the, greater
portion of the practical experience ” out of five years would
mean something greater than 2| years. That was now the
exact reading of the phrase, wThich was given by the
Examining Board itself in reply to a letter which he (Mr.
Briggs) addressed to them on the subject. The letter made
matters a little more clear in this respect, that they could
now say to mining apprentices : ‘‘If you become an
apprentice you can gain your certificate after five years’
experience. Of these five years you can take 21 years plus
a day in actual underground work or in supervision. The
remainder of the time up to the end of five years can be
spent in mine surveying.”

The President remarked that they were greatly indebted
to Mr. Briggs for having obtained this particular interpreta-
tion, and its value was enhanced since it was official, having
been signed by Mr. W. W. Ware, the secretary to the
Board for Mining Examinations.

MANCHESTER GEOLOGICAL AND
MINING SOCIETY.

ANNUAL MEETING.

The annual meeting of the Manchester Geological and
Mining Society was held on Tuesday last, the President, Mr.
Leonard R. Fletcher, being in the chair.

In the course of their 77th annual report, the council
expressed their pleasure at being able to record another
successful year, 26 new members having been elected, of
which 21 were federated members, three federated associate
members, and two federated associates. The withdrawals
by resignation numbered 13, made up of 10 federated
members, one federated associate, one student, and one non-
federated member. In addition there are seven now
federated members of various grades in process of election.

The council had to record with regret the deaths, during
the year, of six federated members, namely, Mr. Robert
Cartwright (elected 1908), Mr. Henry Cowburn (elected
1878), Col. George H. Hollingworth (elected 1878), Mr.
W. Oswald Kellett (elected 1908), Mr. Gregory Raby (elected
1907), Mr. Henry Wall (elected 1882). The council had
also to mourn the loss of several members of the society
who have been killed in action during the present war.
About 40 members are serving at home or at the front, and
the following have been killed in action :—Capt. H.
Hargreaves Bolton, Lieut. George Sydney James, Sapper
William H. Murray, Capt. Hugh Brocklehurst Pilkington,
Capt. Henry Milward Rogers, and Major Augustus Henry
Wheeler.

The report and balance sheet were adopted.

New Members.

The folio wing new members were elected :—Members -
Federated : Mr. William Haslam Cross, 77, King-street,
Manchester; Mr. Evan Davies, 8, New Houses, Trimsaran,
Kidwelly, South Wales; Mr. James Jackson, 4, Brackley
Villas, Little Hulton, Bolton; Mr. William Morris, 77,
King-street, Manchester; Mr. George H. Royston Webster,
‘‘ Clarach,” Rainhill, Lancashire. Associate members—
Federated : Mr. Alexander H. Low, 9, Holland Park,
London, W. ; Mr. Edward W. Teale, “ Brandside,”
Bowden-road, Swinton.

Election of Officers.

Sir Thomas H. Holland moved that Mr. Leonard R.
Fletcher be invited to occupy the position of president for
another year.

Mr. Gerrard (ex-H.M. inspector of mines), in seconding
the proposal, remarked that Mr. Fletcher had not missed a
single meeting during his tenure of office, either of the
council or the general body of members.

The resolution was carried with acclamation.

The President thanked the members for the confidence
they had shown in him by asking him to act as their
president for another year.

The following officers were also appointed :—Vice-presi-
dents : Messrs. C. F. Bouchier, A. J. A. Orchard, W. Pickup,
and T. H. Wordsworth. Council : Messrs. W. T. Anderson,
H. S. Atherton, V. Bramall, A. M. Lamb, W. Ollerenshaw,
J. D. Paton, F. A. Ross, W. Bolton Shaw, Sydney A. Smith,
T. Stone, Charles Turner, and Percy Lee Wood. Hon.
treasurer : Mr. John Ashworth. Hon. secretary : Mr. Noah
T. Williams. Hon. auditors : Messrs. H. S. Atherton and
V. Bramall. Professional accountants : Messrs. Jones,
Crewdson and Youatt.

Presidential Address.

The President, in the course of his presidential address,
said, in choosing a subject, he had decided to touch upon the
matter that was occupying our time and our thoughts, to the
exclusion of almost everything else, and to consider the war
as it influenced the coal mining industry, and, as a corollary
to that, the coal mining industry and its influence on the war.

Dealing with -recruiting among miners, he said, at the
lowest computation, it was certain that there was a reduction
of 20 per cent, in the number of mine workers due to the
war, and it was necessary to estimate the probable effect on
the output of coal produced by that exodus. It would seem
that the export trade would readjust itself without much
benefit to the home market, and, that being so, they must
face the certainty that, with an equal demand during this
year, the output of coal would be reduced by -at least 36
million tons, and that next year that deficit would be even
greater, unless remedial steps could be taken. It was, of
course, a truism to say that there were two courses open :—
(1) To reduce the demand; and (2) to increase the supply.
The demands of the Navy and our Allies were likely to
swallow up most of the coal which was formerly exported to
Germany and Austria. Surely that w’as worth every effort
and sacrifice on the part of every class of colliery worker.
And what of the home demand for manufacturing coal? Was
there a less demand from that quarter? Apparently not, for
whatever might have been the case in the early days of the
war, there was very little short time now, owing to the
demands of the Government for all kinds of war munitions,
and to the wonderful work of our incomparable Navy. Where
then could we look for a reduction in demand? Only, it
would seem, from the private consumer; and it was not. usual
for a colliery owner to plead for that. Nevertheless, the
acting-president of the Coal Owners’ Association made such
an appeal at the great colliery conference in London in July
last, and he (the president) took that opportunity of endorsing
that appeal. It ought to be possible for much coal to be
saved by the householder, especially by the larger house-
holder, by sensible economy in fires, and by the adoption
of modern economical grates.

So much for the demand. Now what means could be
taken for maintaining or increasing the supply? That was a
difficult matter to adjust, as the supply of coal depended so
indirectly on the supply of men. Unless the Government
forbade the further enlistment of colliers it would seem a
matter of impossibility to maintain the output of coal even
at its present reduced figure. Every coal face worker got at
least 10 tons of coal a week if he worked full time under
present conditions, so every collier who enlisted represented a
loss in output of about 500 tons per annum. If it was desired
to maintain the supply of coal with a diminished number of
men, it was obviously necessary for those who remained
behind to make up for those who were away. That could
only be done by increasing the number of hours worked per
day or the number of days worked per week, for in the coal
trade most of the coal was got by piece work, and there were
no trade union rules restricting the output. Whether any
advantage could be obtained by the suspension of the Act
was an arguable point, to which he would now turn. By
rule of three, if an eight hours day produced 250 million