1388

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

June 27, 1913.

stringent class of special rules dealing with this matter
than the Home Office had framed. The real difference
lay more or less in the words “ unless necessary ” and
“ unless authorised.”

In answer to Mr. Smillie, Mr. Blackett said he had
never heard of any explosion which had been proved to
have taken place from a lamp being broken by a fall of
stone while standing on its bottom. He had seen people
look for damaged lamps for the purpose of seeing
whether they had been the cause, but there bad been
usually damage from other causes than falls.

Mr. William Walker, divisional inspector of mines
for Scotland, said a lamp that was put on the bottom
was liable to be knocked over and to be damaged. He
had seen cases where they had been putting wagons on
to the rails, where the lamp had been put on the bottom
when there had been a horse there. The men in those
cases had been in very confined spaces. He had seen
lamps ^nocked over there, and the lamp glass cracked
owing to the flame of the lamp impinging on the glass,
and that lamp afterwards probably went into the most
fiery place in the pit. In Scotland at the present time
there was only one mine where there was a rule to require
that the lamp should be suspended under certain con-
ditions. In the examination and inspections made
of that pit, they never had to find any fault. The lamps
were suspended, but at the other collieries they had
continual fault to find. They found that there was a
liability to damage the lamp and therefore render it
dangerous and to take away its safety by not having it
properly suspended.

Ultimately, the Referee said he thought the rule
must stand as amended.

Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis said it was suggested
by the colliery managers that there should be added at
the end: “ Each person shall be careful to place and
keep his lamp in a safe position,” but his Lordship
said he did not think that was necessary.

Rule 13.

On Regulation 13, which reads as follows: “ Every
workman working at a face shall, to the best of his
power, carry on his work so as at all times to leave a
free passage for the air current. He shall also, to the
best of his power, leave his working place at the end of
his shift in such condition as to allow of work being
safely resumed therein ; and if he finds it impossible to
do so he shall fence it off and report the fact as soon as
possible to the fireman, examiner, or deputy, or other
official,” the Referee said he did not approve of
striking out the words “ or other official.”

As to the proposition that every workman should’ be
provided with a caution board, or caution boards, to put
up in the case of any danger in his working place, Sir
Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis said they would like to
know whether, if they had 800 or 1,000 men working
underground, each man was to have a caution board.

Mr. Smillie said they were willing to put in the
words, “ and each working place shall be supplied with
a caution board.”

Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis called Mr. Evan
Williams, who contended that the recognised practice of
fencing off a place would be far more effective' than
having caution boards. One board for a working place
would not be sufficient, because one board could only be
put in one working place. The board might be lost, and
the manager would be liable.

Mr. W.E. Harvey said these boards had been in
existence for 50 years in his county (Derbyshire).

Mr. Smillie said that with an effective fence a person
could not get over it. What the owners meant by a
fence and what the Home Office meant by a fence was
not a gate at all to prevent people coming in, but two
cross bars, and that might be in a 10 or 12 feet wide
working. It was only to indicate to the person working
that there was danger.

The Referee said he did not think it was necessary
to have caution boards.

Rule 14.

Mr. Smillie said in theory that Rule 14 (“ Every
person having occasion to pass through any door or
canvas screen or flap shall carefully close the same ”)
was all right, but in practice it would be impossible to
carry it out. On an incline a boy or man might go 20
or 30 yards beyond the flap before he could stop his tub,
and then he would require to turn and go back perhaps
20 or 30 yards to make sure that the flap was closed.
There ought to be flap doors hung so as to close
automatically.

Mr. Pope suggestedthat they might meet Mr. Smillie’s
point if they altered the words to “ shall see it properly
closed.”

Mr. Redmayne said the objection against putting
wooden doors in such a place as Mr. Smillie alluded to,
was that there was a continued movement going on of
the strata in a mine, more especially the nearer they
approached the face. For that reason they could not in
every case use framed doors, because the movement of
the strata would cause the frame of a door so to get out
of the straight that it would not shut. The only thing
would be to have a boy there to shut the door, but that
would be a very great danger, especially on an incline,
and unless the boy did not get out of danger, it might
kill him. Another point was that these flap doors were
hung for the purpose of allowing a certain amount of
air to get through. A wooden door was used wherever
they could for the sake of tightness. To provide for a
scale of air by a wooden door would necessitate cutting
the wood.

The Referee decided that the rule should stand.

Rule 15.

This regulation reads as follows : “No person shall
sleep whilst below ground in the mine or whilst in charge
of any winding, hauling, ventilating or signalling
machinery, or apparatus, or boilers.”

Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis said he withdrew the
objection of [the Mining Association. He objected to

the proposal of the Miners’ Federation, which was
after “ sleep ” to take out “ whilst below ground in the
mine or.” It would mean that the men might sleep
underground with their lamps.

Mr. Smillie adduced some reasons why miners could
not at all times keep awake underground. It was no
uncommon thing for a person, especially during certain
periods in the coal trade, for men to be kept two or three
hours at a stretch sometimes waiting for trucks, and his
own experience had been that on many occasions, if
they sat down for half-an-hour, they might drop off to
sleep, not through carelessness, nor indifference, nor
through a desire for sleep, but through being overcome.
No previous rule that he knew of had been directed
against men sleeping underground as such. It had
always been for sleeping underground while in charge
of a safety lamp. Again, he ventured to say if this rule
was put in and carried out in its entirety, the inspectors
would have their hands pretty full.

The Referee thought the rule had better stand as
drafted by the Home Office.

Rule 16.

On Regulation 16, which reads: “No unauthorised
person shall work or interfere with the signalling appa-
ratus in or about the mine,” there was an agreed amend-
ment striking out the word “ the ” and inserting “ any”.

Ruse 17.

This regulation reads as follows :—“ The onsetter at
every entrance into the shaft, when the top and bottom
thereof which is not provided with a fence worked by the
cage or cages, shall not remove the fence until the cage
is opposite to the entrance, and he shall not signal the
cage away unless the fence is in its place, and shall not
permit any other person to open the fence whilst he is
on duty.” Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis said the
Mining Association had an amendment excluding the
bottom of the shaft. When the cage got to the bottom
of the shaft there was an automatic arrangement, and
as soon as the side of the cage was opened the wagons
went in. When the cage was up there should be
a fence to the entrance. This rule was intended to apply
to cases where there was not an automatic arrangement,
but where the fence was worked by hand. The amend-
ment was really for the purpose of saving money, owing
to the time that would be lost in waiting until the cage
got to where it had to stand, or to having to put the
fence there, and when the time that would be lost was
multiplied by the great many times the cage went up
and down during the day, it would mean that there
would be a considerable difference in the output of the
mine. The amendment was that the bottom of the
shaft should not be fenced, and that every mouthing in
the shaft should be fenced, but that when there was no
automatic arrangement and it had to be worked by
hand, as soon as the cage was in use and was coming
down to the entrance the fence should be up, and then,
when the cage1 was ready to go up again, instead of
doing as was provided for in the rule, that the onsetter
should not signal the cage away until the fence was in
its place, they proposed that he should close the fence
immediately he had signalled the cage away. They
provided that there should be a fence to keep people
from walking in that place where the cage might descend
upon them. Then they asked that there should be a
little alteration made in the wording, and that he should
be entitled to remove the fence as soon as the cage came
into view. There would be no possibility of people
getting into a place of danger either before the cage
came down or when the fence was removed. Sir Thomas
Ratcliffe-Ellis called Mr. Evan Williams in support of
the amendment. He suggested that the onsetter might
safely begin to remove the gate in the shaft when he
saw the cage coming down. He could not see, he should
think, more than 6 or 7 feet. The automatic arrange-
ments had not been very successful because they
sometimes got broken. At present the general practice
throughout the country was to have no fence at all.

Mr. Pope said the Act had quite altered the custom.
Section 37 now provided that these shafts must all be
fenced. He added that there was a distinction in the
old Act of 1887 between the top and bottom of the shaft,
an i the words were altered in the new Act to make it
clear that a fence was required at the bottom of the
shaft. The first difficulty the owners had was with
reference to providing new fences at the b >ttom of the
shaft; but now they recognised the force of section 37
(3), and this new regulation was proposed. He thought
they might be able to come to some arrangement with
Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis on this if they had a consul-
tation. They wished to have the words inserted:
“ Opposite to the entrance.”

Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis and Mr. Smillie
assenting, the matter was referred to consultation
overnight.

Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis said the next amend-
ment was in subsection (5). which is as follows:—
“ Adequate protection against things falling down the
shaft shall be provided for persons engaged in loading
and unloading cages.” He suggested the word “ reason-
able ” for “ adequate ” for the reason, that if it was to be
“ adequate,” whenever anything whatever went down the
shaft this rule would be broken.

Mr. Pope said the regulation did not require that
everything falling down the shaft should be intercepted.
What they required was that there should be adequate
protection against all ordinary occurrences.

The Referee said “adequate” seemed to him to
connote the idea of a sort of guarantee that if a thunder-
bolt fell, it should not come down the shaft. He favoured
the insertion of the word “ reasonable.”

Rule 18.

Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis said that upon this
clause the Home Office, Mr. Smillie, and himself had
agreed except as to the wording. The rule referred
to trains run for the conveyance of workmen. The

question was whether such a rule could apply to a train
when it was not on the colliery premises—not on the
area of the mine. Such a train was run by a railway
company by arrangement with the colliery. They
charged a less fare, and the company undertook the
responsibility for any accident. The matter was left
over for further consultation with the Home Office.

Mr. Pope said with reference to 18 (6) there had been
an agreement with reference to new wording. It was
agreed that line 3 should read : “ Of a person appointed
to accompany and have charge of the train.”

Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis said that they quite
agreed that underground there must be a person in
charge of the train. How far they could apply that to
the surface was a matter for discussion.

Mr. Smillie said nobody could conceive the prosecution
by a railway company of a person who refused to enter
a train when told to do so, but yet here their men would
be open to a prosecution if they refused to enter a train
either on the surface or underground. The Home
Secretary promised to redraft the rule and put it in
form and take out the objectionable clause.

The Referee said that all he understood this rule to
mean was that there was to be a man who was to say what
was the proper time for getting into the train, and that
people who were going by the train must get in then.
A little common sense in the reading of these rules
would help them along a great way. However, they
could discuss it and try if they could agree.

Rule 19.

Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis said that with regard
to 19 (a), the owners had an objection which he now
withdrew.

Mr. Pope said they wished to use the word “ animal ”
instead of “ horse ” because there were other animals
than horses used down below.

The Referee suggested the wording “ Every person
having charge of a horse, pony, mule, or donkey, shall
drive it carefully, and shall observe any directions that
may be given to him by the horsekeeper.

It was next proposed that after “ animal ” “ nor
upon any tram, tub, or other contrivance drawn by
a horse or other animal except by permission of the
manager or under-manager,” should be added. Mr.
Lewis urged that the colliery manager should have
the power to forbid workmen riding in tubs.”

Mr. Smillie objected to this amendment, on the
ground that it was creating unnecessarily another crime.

Mr. Pope said that under section 74 the manager
would have the power of giving a general direction.

Mr. Redmayne said the universal practice in
Northumberland and Durham was for the whole of the
putters to ride on the limmers of the tub, and it would
be a danger to prohibit them from doing so. Riding
upon a tub was one thing and riding inside a tub was
another thing. The riding on the edge of a tub was
quite a dangerous thing. If the road was not safe it was
a very dangerous thing for the boy to be on the road at
all.

Mr. Smillie said it would interfere with their people
being able to get compensation in the event of any
accident taking place.

The Referee pointed out that permission could be
given by assenting—by not objecting. If the manager
knew that it was the practice for boys or men to go
along in this way and did not interfere, the law would
say that he had consented, and it was reasonable,
because if he knew it was being done and did not
dissent it must be taken that he consented. He con-
sidered that the words should go in.

Rule 20.

The Referee read Rule 20: “ No person when
taking a tub by hand down an incline of which the
gradient exceeds 1 in 12 shall go in front of the tub,”
and said it was agreed to add some words : “ And in every
case where the conditions are such that a man cannot
control the tub by hand from behind, he shall not take
the tub down unless some contrivance is provided to
enable him to control the tub.

Speaking for the South Staffordshire and East
Worcestershire coalmasters, Mr. Tryon asked his
lordship to be allowed to deal with this rule in conjunc-
tion with Rule 10. Again, of course, it was only limited
to the thick coal. There was no wish that any man
should go in front of a tub on a main road. It was
merely a case where the tub was loaded and went a few
yards, the incline varying from time to time, and they
wanted to get a provision to enable them to steady it.
It was material in the working of the coal.

Rule 21.

Rule 21 was amended to read : “ Take or bring any
intoxicating liquor on or in the mine, and no person
shall throw any stone or other missile, or fight or behave
in a violent manner, in or about the mine.”

Rule 22.

Rule 22 reads : “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.”

Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis said the owners wanted
it to apply to negligence as well as to wilfulness. They
suggested that there was probably more mischief done
by negligence than by absolute wilfulness, in support of
which statement he called Messrs. Phillips, Fothergill
and Weeks.

Mr. Pope said the rule was based upon similar
provisions in the general laws of railways, and the
owners, in wishing to introduce the word “ negligence ”
here, were asking for something more stringent than
was quite right. The effect of their alteration would be
that the mere act of negligence leading to damage to
property would become an offence punishable by fine
and imprisonment. His learned junior had gone through