June 20, 1913.

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

1345

the Home Office, and, when they had the approval of
the Home Office, they had stood ever since, except in
one case, when the Home Office proposed in 1902 some
new special timbering rules. The special rules were
discussed in different districts, and they were ultimately
adopted without any arbitration at all. The Home
Office, in approving the rules which were made after
the Act of 1887, and with regard to a very recent altera-
tion of the special rules made by the Home Office, have
always recognised until this code that the duties of each
particular class should be specified, and, amongst other
classes, the miners. It seemed to him a new view taken
by the Home Office, because Rule 36 of the general rules
in the Act of 1887 said: “ Every person shall observe
such directions with respect to working as may be given
to him with a view to comply with this Act or the special
rules in force in the mine.” That was almost word for
word the same as section 74 of the Act of 1911, and
yet they considered it necessary to recognise the
necessity in the special rules for providing for the
special duties of workmen. The next clause he
would consider was General Regulation 22. The
difference between the Home Office and the owners
was that they said that a man should be answerable
for his negligence as well as for his duty. The
rule as it stood was: “No person employed in or
about the mine shall wilfully do anything likely to
endanger life or limb or any property in the mine, or
wilfully neglect to do anything necessary for the safety
of the mine or of the persons employed therein.” In
the existing special rule which had been working since
1887, a miner must not do anything negligent, and we
point out that it is more from negligence than wilful-
ness that many of the accidents arise. He would pass
to Rule 39, in which there was an important principle
concerned. By Rule 39 it was required that before men
go to work, the places in which they were to work, and
the roads through which they had to pass, were to be
examined within two hours of the time for the shift;
that was in order to see that the place was safe. The
general practice throughout every district, except
Northumberland and Durham—there might be excep-
tions, but generally the practice was that that examina-
tion was made by the fireman who was working the
shift preceding the shift when the men came to work,
and it was the last two hours of his work that he spent
in examining these places. He then met the fireman
who succeeded him, the succeeding fireman saw the
men into their places and remained with them during
the whole of that shift. Now it was suggested in
this rule that that practice should not be possible,
that there should be a change of firemen during the
shift. The man who saw the men in could not see
them throughout the whole shift, because nine and a-half
hours is the time. Section 14 of the Act said: “For
every mine there shall be appointed by the manager in
writing one or more competent persons (hereinafter
referred to as firemen, examiners, or deputies) to make
such inspections and carry out such other duties as to
the presence of gas, ventilation, state of roof and sides,
and general safety (including the checking and recording
of the number of persons under his charge) as are
required by this Act and the regulations of the mine.”
That was his duty. The fireman who had been working
during the night had been working in these places
where the men would come to work during the day, he
had been putting things to right, and the last thing he
did was to go round the place where the new shift was
to come and see that everything was in order, and he
told that to the fireman who looked to the men during
the shift. He could not stay during the whole shift
because the Eight Hours Act would not allow him. There-
fore there must be a change during the shift, and it was
suggested in this clause that there should be that change.
They said it was not desirable to make that change.
It was suggested that the man who had made the
examination during the night, or immediately before the
men come to work would then go home, and the new
man came on. Supposing that this was not ■ to be done,
and that the man who had to make the examination
before the shift was the new man, it would be a
re-arrangement of this man’s duties. There were some
people who said it was safer for the man who made the
examination to see the men who came in through the
whole of their shift; but other people said it was not
safer. It was safer for the man who had been on duty
during the night to make the examination before
the men came to the shift, after he had told his
successor what the conditions were. They said let it be
optional, and their amendments of this clause were
to provide that it might be optional. There was a
difference of opinion as to which was the better plan.
Referring to Rule 68, he wanted to show first of all
what the Act said as to electricity, and then he would
go to the part of the Act which dealt with lamps.
Electricity was governed by section 60 of the Act:
“ (1) Electricity shall not be used in any part of a mine,
where, on account of the risk of explosion of gas or
coaldust, the use of electricity would be dangerous
to life, and, if the owner of a mine, on being
required by an inspector of the division not to use,
or to desist from using, electricity in the mine or any
part thereof on such ground as aforesaid, refuses to do
so, the question as to the application of this section to
the mine or part thereof shall be settled in manner
provided by this Act for settling disputes. (2) If at
any time in any place in the mine the percentage of
inflammable gas in the general body of the air in that
place is found to exceed one and a quarter, the electric
current shall at once be cut off from all cables and other
electrical apparatus inthat place, and shall not be switched
on again as long as the percentage of inflammable gas
exceeds that amount.” That was the statutory con-
dition under which electricity might be used at all.
Then there were a number of regulations with reference
to the use of electricity, and they were very carefully
worked out. The rules and the conditions under which

sufficient quantity of props and bars for safely securing
the roof and sides of their own working place, and adc
to them or renew them when necessary or when told by
the manager, undermanager or deputy.” He would
call witnesses from different districts who would direct
attention to the particular rule in their own district
placing upon the miners the obligation to do certain
work. These observations he was making applied
generally to this particular amendment to Clause 5 and
to other amendments which they had made. Now they
were under an obligation under section 86, which had
been referred to, to supply a copy of this regulation to
all men employed at the colliery. A copy of this
regulation supplied without these amendments would
convey to the workmen the duties of the officials, the
manager, the under-manager, the fireman, the deputy,
and even the boiler-minder, but it would not convey to
him anything obliging him to do any work directly.
Now they said it ought to do so. Further, they said
that if there were an omission of such clauses as these,
if they were not contained in the directory clauses, so
to speak, the consequences would be very serious,
because getting timber and propping up the roof,
which was the object of the rule, was obviously
necessary for the man’s safety ; he was the only
man who could keep himself safe; he was in the place,
and he must be on the watch for any necessity for
putting a prop up or for doing other things to protect
himself from danger ; and that was recognised in every
district throughout the kingdom. The words that they
wanted inserted were “ and at intervals.” With regard
to clause 5, they wanted to add these words: “When
the work of erecting the supports of the roof and sides
of the working place is done by the workmen employed
therein, he shall be responsible during his shift for the
due examination, proper timbering, packing, and safety
of his working place, and for the safety of every person
employed with him in his working place,” and so on.
He had referred to what the danger would be if there
were the omission of such regulations in the new rules.
They were in the existing rules, and the men knew they
were there. It was a rule which it was at times some-
times difficult to enforce, because it was unrem unerative
labour. The man’s remuneration was when he was
getting coal, and as time was now limited by the
Legislature as to how long he could be there, there was
rather an inducement to spend all the time he could
in getting the coal ; therefore, it was a rule which
required enforcing from time to time. Looking at the
statistical returns for 1910, he found there were 55
prosecutions of workmen for neglecting these timbering
rules, and he thought in 53 of those prosecutions there
were convictions. The men knew it was there now, but
if they found a code of rules in which these rules did
not appear what would be the result ? They would
come to the conclusion that this work was removed from
them and must be done by somebody else. One other
reason was this: If a man were liable to be summoned
he should know exactly what he had to do and what the
consequences might be of his not doing it, and he
should not be brought before a magistrate by reason of
some implication from some existing rule as to what he
ought to do ; it ought to be made perfectly clear what
he had to do, and then he would, if he did not do it,
know what the consequences would be. The Home
Office, to begin with, and in the second place the Miners’
Federation objected to the amendment at present being
dealt with.

Mr. Pope said that he understood Sir Thomas
Ratcliffe-Ellis had been referring to the working out in
detail of the old special rules and to the various duties
of the various officials. In the Royal Commission
Report that system was in terms condemned, and it had
not been followed in the preparation of this draft. On
page 176 at the second paragraph from the bottom the
Report said: “We have referred to the origin of the
system at some length, as it has been suggested to us
that the main object of special rules is to work out in
detail the requirements of the general rules, but we do
not agree with this view. It was considered impracti-
cable at that time to establish a uniform code of rules
applicable throughout the country, and so the expedient
was adopted of laying down certain general require-
ments and of leaving other matters to be dealt with
according to the special circumstances of each mine.”
Then they go on to talk about it, and they ultimately
ended by recommending that the time had arrived
when the special rules should be superseded by a
general code. At page 178 they said in the first
paragraph : “ There are obvious advantages in keeping
the length of the codes within as narrow limits as is
consistent with the interests of safety, since the shorter
a code is, the easier it is both for workmen and officials
to familiarise themselves with its provisions. Uniformity,
so far as it can be obtained, would also be beneficial
as it would facilitate administration and the mainten-
ance of discipline. We agree with the witnesses who
have expressed the view that many of the special rules
might be made general rules. We should prefer,
however, to see the distinction in nomenclature
abolished. Certain regulations, corresponding to the
present general rules, should be incorporated in the
Act, and there should be power to supplement or
modify them by additional regulations established in
the manner we recommend later.”

Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis explained that the
general rules said what ought to be done; the
special rules provided who should do it. That was
generally the distinction between the way in which the
two rules ran. The general rules could not be altered,
and never were altered. The special rules were rules
which could be by statutory procedure altered from
time to time. They were established in this way. The
parties in many districts met together and discussed
the matter. In his own district, Lancashire, the
workmen and employers discussed the form of a code of
special rules, then those special rules were submitted to

electricity might be used were worked out in considerable
detail for safety. To those they made no objection.
No. 129 (iv.) was with reference to electric lamps ;
“ Every electric lamp shall be enclosed in an airtight
fitting, and the lamp globe itself shall be hermetically
sealed, (v.) A safety lamp shall be provided and used”
—that was to say, if there was inflammable gas likely
to occur—it was the statutory provision with reference
to electricity—“ with each motor when working, and
should any indication of firedamp appear from such
safety lamp, the person appointed to work the motor
shall forthwith cut off the pressure therefrom, and
report the matter to a fireman, examiner, or deputy, or
other official.” The inspector could discontinue its use
if he thought it was dangerous, and wherever there was 1|
per cent, in the general body of the air it must be switched
off and it could not be used. Now as to electric lamps,
section 32 of the Act of 1911 provided: “ No lamp or
light other than a locked safety lamp shall be allowed or
used,” and then it mentioned the conditions under
which it should not be used. If it was a safety lamp the
illuminant might be electricity, but it must be airtight.
This did not refer to safety lamps. Then the
proviso after (e) provided : “ Subject always to the
provisions of this Act and any regulations made
thereunder as to the use of electricity in mines,
electric lamps, if enclosed in airtight fittings and
having the lamp globes hermetically sealed, may be
used on main haulage roads or elsewhere within such
limits as may be fixed by the regulations of the mine.”
This regulation fixed the area, and they said it was
too restricted. There was only one other thing that he
would refer to, and that was the right which the Referee
had to alter the Act of Parliament. Section 86 of the
Act said : “ The Secretary of State may by order make
such general regulations for the conduct and guidance
of the persons acting in the management of mines or
employed in or about mines as may appear best
calculated to prevent dangerous accidents and to provide
for the safety, health, convenience and proper discipline
of the persons employed in or about mines, and for the
care and treatment of horses and other animals used
therein, and any such regulations may vary or amend
any of the provisions contained in Part II. of, or the
Third Schedule to, this Act.” These amendments he was
asking to be made were contained in Part II. of the Act.
That was the express provision in this Act of Parlia-
ment, and it was a very proper provision. Part II. of the
Act was intended for safety. The conditions under which,
mines might be worked safely were constantly changing,
and if Part II. of the Act were to be cast iron and
unalterable, it would be a very serious defect in the Act,
and recognising that changes had to be made in that part
of the Act which more particularly related to safety, this
was put in in order that the Home Office could do this.
The Home Secretary, when these regulations were sent
to him, if he makes them at all, must make them as the
Referee had altered them, but he need not make
them. He was not bound to make the regulation.
In Schedule II., Part I., subsection (iv.), the last part
of the subsection was: “If on any such reference the
referee considers that the draft order should be varied
to meet the objection, he shall recommend any variation
which he considers necessary or expedient, and effect
shall be given to those recommendations in the order, if
made.” That was, the Home Secretary might make it
or not. He agreed that a very strong case must be put
before the Referee was asked to alt^r, amend, or vary
the Act, but he had power to do it. Then, with reference
to the keeping in existence of certain special rules, that
was in Part VII. of these regulations—the repeal part of
it—section 126 (5) of the Act of Parliament said:
“Nothing in this repeal shall affect any special rules
which at the commencement of this Act are in force
under any Act hereby repealed in any mine, but such
rules shall, until regulations affecting the mine and
revoking such rules have been made under this Act,
have effect as if they were the regulations of the mine
under this Act.” That meant to say that the old state
of things was to continue until they were revoked by
the regulations of the mine. Here was the regulation of
the mine which proposed to revoke them all.

Mr. Pope said there was a difference of view as
between themselves and the Miners’ Federation about
Rule 4 (a). The Miners’ Federation suggested in line 4
that “ after ‘ emergency ’ there should be inserted 4 or
other justifiable cause.’ ”

Mr. Smillie said he would like to call attention to
the fact that with regard to those special regulations
which had been issued by the Home Office, the miners
were subject to prosecution for the breach of any regula-
tion, that was by the Act of Parliament, but it was not
merely the clauses of the Act of Parliament. In
common law it was a breach of the law for which a person
was prosecuted, but in mining legislation it was also the
breach of any regulation such as that, or any special
rule which might be drafted. He was rather astonished
to hear Sir Thomas say that there were not regulations
for the guidance of a miner. Not only was a miner
liable to prosecution, imprisonment, or fine, for breach
of any of those regulations, but he was penalised in
another way, and they were particularly anxious to
avoid that. If a miner was injured, and it could be
proved that he had either neglected any part of those
rules or been guilty of a breach of those rules, the
employer pleaded in court, when compensation was
claimed, that he had been guilty of a breach of the rule,
and that the accident to him did not arise out of or in
the course of his employment, and if he succeeded, not
only was the person injured liable to prosecution, but
was also liable to be refused compensation. That, he
thought, would prove how necessary it was that they
should be careful not to make any alteration of these
rules unless it was in the interest of safety. They said,
“Or other justifiable cause.” If that were not put in,
and a miner in his working place found he required to
borrow a pick or a shovel or any other tool, and left his