644

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

March 28, 1913.

than eight hours in any one day in the circumstances
hereinafter mentioned, but subject to the conditions
contained in these regulations.

(2.) Where winding is carried on at a shaft by a succession
of shifts a winding engineman may, for the purpose of
changing shifts, be employed on one day in the week for a
period not exceeding [twelve] sixteen hours, or for two shifts
of eight hours each, provided :

(i.) That an interval of not less than eight hours
elapses between the termination of his employ-
ment in one shift and the commencement of his
employment in the next;

(ii.) the period of employment does not, on the average
of any three consecutive weeks, exceed eight
hours[.] per working day.

(3.) Where winding is carried on at a shaft by a succession
of shifts and when on any day one of the winding enginemen
is, by reason of illness, accident, or other cause, unavoidably
prevented from working his shift, or where, owing to illness,
accident, or other cause, the employer is unavoidably prevented
from obtaining the services of such engineman, a winding
enginemen may be employed for not more than twelve hours
on that day, or may be employed on a system of eight hour
shifts with an interval of eight hours between each shift,
provided that he shall not be so employed for more than
[two] six weeks consecutively[.] in respect of the absence of
such engineman.

(4 ) Where winding is carried on at a shaft by a succes-
sion of shifts, but the work during some period or periods
of the day is much heavier than the work during other
periods, and it is desirable, in the interests of safety, that
the winding engineman employed during the period or
periods of heavier work shall not be employed for so long a
time as eight hours, then if such winding engineman is
employed for any less time than eight hours during the
day, a winding engineman employed during the other part
of the day may be employed for a corresponding time in
excess of the eight hours, but not exceeding ten hours in
all.

(5.) Where winding is carried on at a shaft by a suc-
cession of shifts, and the winding enginemen employed at
that shaft have agreed, with the consent of the manager,
to be absent in turn from the end of their shift on Saturday
to the commencement of their shift on Monday, each of the
winding enginemen may be employed for not more than
[twelve] sixteen hours both on Saturday and on Sunday in
not more than two weeks in any three, or for alternate shifts
of sixteen hours and twelve hours and twelve hours, or on a
system of eight hour shifts; provided that an interv * I of not
less than eight hours elapses between the termination of the
employment in one shift and the commencement of employment
in the next and, provided that notice of this arrangement is
affixed by the manager in the winding engine house.

(6.)—(a.) Where at any shaft one shift only of persons
descends and ascends the shaft during the day, and mineral
is not wound before the descent or after the ascent of that
shift, a winding engineman may be employed for not more
than [ten] ten and a half hours on any day at that shaft.

(b.) In any mine where only two shifts of workmen are
employed below ground during a day, the one a miner al-getting
shift and the other a repairing shift, and mineral is not wound
or got except during the hours of the mineral-getting shift, and
the total output of any such mine does not excee i on the average
one hundred tons of mineral per working day, a winding
engineman may be employed for a period not exceeding nine
hours.

(c.) Where at times, when no shift of men is at work in the
mine, it is necessary for some person or persons to descend the
mine, and a person not otherwise employed to work a winding
engine is employed to lower and raise such person or persons*
the person so employed may be employed for more than eight
hours but not for more than twelve hours in any day.

(7.) In the event of any accident to the winding
machinery or other accident interfering with the lowering
or raising of workmen, or in the event of any emergency
requiring the continuous attendance of a winding engine-
man at the engine in the interests of the safety of the men
or animals in or about the mine [below ground], a winding
engineman may continue to be employed after the end of
his shift unless and until another winding engineman
regularly employed at the same shaft is available to take
his place.

(8.) The manager shall specify in a notice, which shall be
kept constantly posted up in the engine-room, the hours of
employment of the winding engineman at a shaft, or, if the
winding is carried on at that shaft in more than one shift
during the day, the hours of employment of the winding
engineman of each shift.

If a winding engineman is employed for more than eight
hours in any one day in pursuance of any of the exemptions
in these Regulations [2, 4, 5 or 6] the notice shall also state
under which exemption or exemptions the extended period
of employment is claimed.

(9.)—(a) The manager shall cause a register to be kept
in the engine-room in the prescribed form, and it shall be
the duty of the winding engineman on each day on which
he is employed to enter in the book the hour at which he
commenced his employment and the hour at which he
terminated his employment on that day. The register shall
be examined each day by the official, if any, superior to the

winding engineman, having the general charge of the
machinery, or, if there is no such official, by the manager or
under-manager, and shall be initialled by him.

(6.) Where a winding engineman is employed in pursuance
of the exemption contained in Regulation 3 or Regulation 7,
full particulars of the case shall be entered in the register.

11 IGNITIONS ” AND 11 EXPLOSIONS.”

Important Test Case in Scotland.

In Haddington Sheriff Court, Interim Sheriff-Substitute
Graham has given a verdict of “ Not guilty " in a charge
against the Summerlee Iron Company Limited, 176, West
George-street, Glasgow, to the effect that, being owners of
Prestongrange Colliery, and an explosion of inflammable
gas having occurred in No. 1 Diamond seam, No. 2 pit,
Morrisonshaven, Prestongrange Colliery, on August 12,1912,
whereby a pit repairer was injured, and another explosion
of inflammable gas having occurred in said seam on
August 15, 1912, whereby a miner was injured, the company
did, between August 12, 1912, and January 11, 1913,
continuously allow lamps or lights other than locked safety
lamps to be used within said seam, contrary to the Coal
Mines Act, 1911. The case was largely in the nature of a
test one, a point mainly dealt with being the definition of
when the firing of gas in a mine was merely an “ ignition "
of gas and when it was an “ explosion” in terms of the Act.
A stated case was applied for.

As the matter is of exceptional interest to mining
engineers and colliery proprietors, we give a summary of
the evidence tendered by the expert witnesses called, these
including some of the best-known mining engineers in
Scotland.

The Home Office Case.

On behalf of the prosecution evidence was given by John
Pry de (22), a pit repairer at No. 2 pit, Prestongrange
Colliery. He stated that he went to work on the evening
of Monday, August 12, along with two men named Charles
Marshall and Owen Gilroy. They went down in No. 1
Diamond seam siding, and James Berg, the nightshift fire-
man, gave orders to strap the walls of certain of the branches
there. Witness went into branch No. 3, whilst Marshall and
Gilroy were in No. 1. He was turning to go back when some
gas lit, and there was a flame. He had a naked lamp light
in his cap, and noticed that the flame just rolled across the
roof; it turned and went back again. He was burned from
the right elbow to the right shoulder. The length of the
branch, roughly speaking, was about 100 ft. The occurrence
happened at the branch furthest from the main road, close
up to the face. The gas remained lit for about a minute or
less, for he could not have counted more than ten. When
the gas lit, witness's lamp remained also lighted, and was
not blown out. He was not badly burned, being off for
about nine days. Immediately after the occurrence he did
not go up the pit, but stayed on at his work and finished his
shift.

After Dr. J. H. Horsburgh had given evidence, Charles
Hugh Marshall (23), pit repairer, stated that they heard
a shout and ran out to the main road. When they got to
the main road, John Pry de was standing holding his arms
and his arms were burned. Before they ran out they felt
nothing in No. 1. They felt some smell of burning after
they went back. The face where they were working and
where Pry de was working was properly ventilated. At the
place where Pryde was working, the check screen was a
little down. The Clenny lamp was used at the face for
safety, but naked lights were used in the road even after
the safety lamp had been used for testing.

Similar evidence was given by Owen Gilroy (29), labourer.

James Berg (43), assistant fireman, followed in the witness
box. He said the breadth of the road at No. 3 branch was

between 6 ft. and 7 ft. The height from the pavement to
the roof was close on 6 ft. At that time, as near as he
could guess, it would be 170 ft. from the main road to the
face in No. 3 branch. The place would be about from three-
quarters to one mile from the main shaft. After the
accident to Pryde they continued to work this seam with
naked lights.

William Low (35), miner, said that on August 15 last
he was employed in No. 1 Diamond seam. He had a naked
light, which he was carrying in his bonnet. When he got
into branch No. 3 or No. 4 he raised a little bit of gas
at the lip of the brushing. Nothing serious happened to
him, for he wrought his shift after it. He felt it warm;
that was all. His lamp was not blown out at all. The gas
must have been about the upper part of the road, at the roof.
There was a crack along the roof. He saw a glare, and that
was all. There was no noise. They continued to work with a
naked light afterwards, bus every man got a safety lamp to
take in with him for testing.

Corroborative evidence was tendered by Thomas Quinn
(22), a miner; James Quinn (52), a miner; and Archibald
Galloway (33), pit fireman.

Mr. Robert G. M. Prichard, an inspector of mines under
Mr. William Walker, H.M. inspector of mines in Scotland,
said he made his inspection on August 17. At the time, the
section was worked longwall, and a coal-cutter was employed
to undercut the coal. The thickness of the whole seam was
about 2 ft. 10 in. The extent of the brushing was something

like 3 ft. The width of the branch road No. 3 to the dip was
about 5 ft. at the top and something like 8 ft. at the bottom.
The breadth at the point where the accident happened was
about 8 ft. at the bottom and 5| ft. at the top. The section
was wet on that day. He had been there since, and there
were signs of dust—not in the section so much as in the
main road. It seemed to be comparatively well ventilated,
but not, of course, sufficient to comply with the Act, which
required enough air as to render gas harmless. He was told
that the extent of the current of air at that time was about
3,400 cubic feet per minute, and it was passing through the
faces.

Witness gave it as his view that it was impossible to have
an ignition of methane without an explosion, using the
language of scientists. If he was told that a miner on going
into a particular roadway had stood up with a lighted lamp
in his cap and the immediate result was a glare and a
burning of the skin, he would, in writing a report, describe
it as an explosion. He would describe the occurrence to
Pryde as an explosion coming under section 32 1 (6). That
was the opinion of everyone in the mining world he had
talked to. It was defined in the Act as an explosion. Low's
case also was undoubtedly an explosion ; but in a case like
that they’might have used the word “ ignition." They did
that in such an instance where a man had not been burned.
Witness was referred to the Notice of Accidents Act, 1906,
and the Order No. 934 of date December 22, 1906, and
admitted that it was only since the Order of that date was
issued that they had had occasion to report occurrences
causing an ignition of gas underground. The mineowner
had not to report to them prior to that Order any dangerous
occurrence which did not cause injury to a workman.

In cross-examination, Mr. Pritchard said that the fact that
in the Lothian fields in order to get to the coal they had to
go below to the millstone grit did not, in his opinion, have
a very important effect on whether a mine was wet or dry.
He admitted that they had much more firedamp in some parts
of England than they had in Scotland; but on the other hand,
there was much more firedamp in some parts of Scotland
than in other parts of England. He had seen plenty of gas
in wet mines.

In further cross-examination, witness said that if he lit
the gas in a dining room in the ordinary way he would not
describe that as an explosion, but he would when the
windows were blown out. Scientifically, however, he would
not recognise any distinction between the lighting of a gas
in the ordinary way and a case when the windows were
blown out. An ignition officially was when anyone is
burned. If they had a great deal of damage, he
thought it would be described as an explosion.
Counsel pointed out that Statutory Rule No. 934 detailed
certain specified classes of occurrences “ whether personal
injury or disablement has been caused or not." Witness
said that an ignition of gas where personal disablement had
ensued was an explosion. The Order merely emphasised the
previous Act. In his view all ignitions were explosions

■ Counsel pointed out further that the instructions under the
Order differentiated between a bigger explosion and a
smaller thing. Witness said it was a question of degree. A
manager might not think it worth while to report an
ignition unless they had put that second clause in. There
was a difference in the question of degree and the injury,
and the judge of the difference was the person reporting.
Witness further said they were to understand that the term
“explosion" was not used as synonymous' with “com-
bustion," but they could not have an explosion without
ignition. Yet the two things could not be different. He
admitted that every explosion need not be followed by an
ignition.

Similar evidence was given by Mr. Wm. Walker, H M.
inspector of mines, and Mr. John Masterton, H.M. inspector
of mines.

Professor Latham’s Evidence.

Prof. Charles Latham, Glasgow University, was an
important witness on behalf of the prosecution. He said it
was consistent with his experience that they might have an
explosion of firedamp which did not produce effects that
were heard or felt by men working a very short distance
from the point where the explosion occurred. They could
not have the ignition of a body of inflammable gas in a
mine without explosion. If an ignition took place, there
would necessarily be an explosion, because there was
the same temperature. Wherever there was a propa-
gation of a flame through an inflammable mixture of gas,
in his opinion there was an explosion. Taking the case
of an outburst of gas, witness said that at some place
between the point where the mixture became inflammable
and the roof the mixture was highly explosive. It would
become more explosive up to a certain point and then decrease
again. With a man rising up with his naked light and a
sudden propagation of flame across the whole roof, it was
plain that the mixture which he ignited was an explosive
mixture. As he approached the roof the percentage of gas
was greatest to the roof, and he would get an increased
height of cap, coupled with the increased density of gas.
The density of the cap had something to do with it.
For instance, in very small percentages, sometimes with two
percentages very close to each other, they could see very
little difference in the height of the cap, so far as the naked
eye was concerned. There would be a difference if they used