June 27, 1913.

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

1391

Rule 35.

There was an amendment in line 1 to leave out
‘ travelable ” and insert “ working.”

Mr. Stewart, who said he had had 32 years’ experience
in the management of collieries in South Wales, added
that so far as one group of collieries that were under
his charge was concerned, such a rule as suggested
was actually carried out at the present time. On the
other hand, they had got other collieries in another
valley that had been worked for very many years in
which there was a number of old watercourses to
conduct the water from the underground workings to
the surface, which it would be practically impossible for
the under-manager to traverse regularly. In the winter
time, especially, there was a good deal of water in those
watercourses, and the practice was that the under-
manager from time to time, as he might think fit and
necessary, traversed them. That was applicable not
only to watercourses, but to other roads disused but
still travelable. There were many parts of a mine
that were not working which seriously affected the
condition of that mine, and wanted looking after;
but that ought to be left to the discretion of the
manager.

Mr. Blackett said they had a method in the North
of England which converted their mines into a series
of streets, and in course of time they got their workings
spread out over large areas. In the course of time the
pit would be divided up into hundreds of pillars of coal.
There would be many many miles of these galleries, the
bulk of which were not used. Where the pillars were
removed, unless the roof stood up over immense areas,
they could not get into them; but if the roof did stand
up in the way he had seen it, they could get into them.
This rule would call upon them to travel under that area
where the coal had been removed. It would apply also
to those pits where they did not take away the pillars,
and there were miles under large towns.

Mr. Pope said the rule was based on the Lancashire
rule, which he read, but Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis
pointed out that in Lancashire the parts which are
“ accessible ” ould be the working parts, and they might
be dangerous if not examined. He would not object to
a rule of this sort in Lancashire.

Mr. Wallwork gave evidence in support. He said
that in the pillar-and-stall working, after they had
fenced off, they would not think it necessary for the
purpose of the safety of the mine frequently and care-
fully to examine the area fenced off. Under this
rule in Lancashire they did not do it.

Mr. Pope said they would accept the word “ accessible”
as used in the Lancashire rule, but the Referee said
he did not think “accessible” would do, because it
might be said that no part was accessible.

Mr. Weeks said that in Northumberland they had
hundreds and hundreds of these big pillars, and he was
working to-day pillars of coal that were left 40 years
ago. Their system, however, was that as soon as the
gateway was driven up they withdrew all the timber
that had kept the roof up. They had hundreds of these,
and some collieries had nothing else—especially on the
sea coast—but these pillars of coal. They called it the
waste, and people were not allowed to go into the
waste ; they were barred off, and they kept an official who
was called the waste man, and one of his duties was to
“ frequently examine the main intake and return air
current and goaf edges; and if any part of the mine in
his department be foul he shall take steps for having it
remedied and report to the manager or under-manager.’

Mr. Redmayne said the place that Mr. Blackett
sketched was not a travelable place, and therefore a
man should not be exp cted to go there; but there were
numerous parts in a mine which, though fenced off, it
was most desirable, in the general interests of the safety
of the mine, should be periodically travelled. He should
say that once in three months it often happened that a
district ran into a tract of hard coal, and therefore it
did not pay, with the depressed state of the market, to
work it, and in order to carry out the Act that part was
fenced off and the rest of the mine was worked. What
they wished to carry out was that that district should
be from time to time inspected, otherwise it might occur
that a fall of rock would take place in that intake and
shut up the whole of the ventilation.

Mr. Weeks said that where they had given up
working a particular part of the mine that went under
the sea they did not visit it for the purpose of seeing
whether it was in a dangerous condition or not, unless
there was a main intake and a return airway going
through it. In that case it would be travelled every day
or once every week. The rule ought to be confined to
airways.

Mr. Redmayne defined “ travelable ” as a place
where a man could travel by standing in safety. It was a
word they used in order to get over the word
“ accessible,” because all the places Mr. Blackett
mentioned were accessible, but they were not travelable.

In answer to a question by the Referee, Mr.
Blackett said that in the North of England they
recognised that an under-manager should take 25
minutes to the mile, but he might have had to crawl
on his hands and knees through 50 or 60 miles of these
workings. He took a case at Gateshead, where one of
the provisions in one of the leases was that not more
than 33 per cent, of the coal was to be removed. Some
of those seams were 3 ft. and less thick and they had
splendid roads ; some of them would stand to the crack
of doom almost.

Mr. Dixon said he knew one mine in Cleveland where
there were nearly 300 miles of roads such as these which
were travelable.

Mr. Redmayne maintained that it was impossible to
ascertain without going all over the area whether there
was a danger from either gas or water within the area.
He was convinced that that was the cause of the
explosion at Whitehaven.

After further discussion the Referee suggested that
instead of using the word “ frequently ” they should use
the words “ from time to time.” The manager would be
able to exercise his own judgment then as to when it was
necessary to examine these accessible or travelable
places, and it need not then put upon him a very serious
obligation. “ Travelable,” in his opinion, meant safely
travelable. That made the rule read “ He shall from
time to time carefully examine all travelable parts of
the mine, whether frequented by workmen or not.”

The proceedings then terminated for the day.

Rule 33.

At the outset of Friday’s proceedings his Lordship
read an agreed form of words for Rule 33 as follows :
“ He shall, unless an official between himself and the
fireman, examiners, or deputies has been appointed,
make arrangements for their meeting him daily for the
purpose of conferring on matters connected with their
duties; and shall also make arrangements to meet
the other underground officials daily for the like
purpose.”

Rule 36.

official of the mine, superior to the fireman, examiner,
or deputy, but inferior to the manager and the under-
manager, the same shall be a person of not less than
23 years of age, and holding a second class certificate of
competency under the Coal Mines Act, or holding a
fireman’s certificate. He must also have had at least
three years’ practical experience in a mine.”

Rule 38

Following Clause 38, the following new clause was
proposed by the owners and managers :—“ Every official
of the mine shall carry out the duties assigned to him
by the manager, and shall carry out and enforce those
provisions of the Act and of the regulations and orders
made thereunder which relate to the matters in respect
of which such duties have been so assigned.”

Mr. Pope contended that Regulations 31, 36, 37
and 38 covered it. The desire appeared to be to extend
the penal provisions in the regulations to matters
outside safety. The Home Office held that the duties of
the under - manager and firemen were completely
covered, and that as regarded the intermediate officials
their duties were sufficiently covered also by Regula-
tion 36. The other duties were already governed by

section 74.

The Referee said that provision of the Act was very
unsatisfactory in his opinion. “Every peison shall
observe such directions with respect to working as may
be given to him.” By whom ? It ought to say who was
to give the directions. This new clause did.

Mr. Redmayne said he could see no objection to this
new clause, except that it was one more regulation.

The Referee said he agreed. It was another regula-
tion which, in his opinion, was unnecessary; but why
should they not have it ?

Rule 39.

On this rule, which refers to the firemen’s exami-
nation before the commencement of work, Sir Thomas
Ratcliffe-Ellis proposed an important objection. He
said the practice in many parts of the country—he
thought in the largest area—was that even now in the
simplest case where there was one coal-getting shift in
the day, and a repairing shift in the night, the fireman
on duty in the night was engaged for the whole of his
time in going from place to place, making places safe,
and the last two hours of that man’s time were spent in
examining the places in which the incoming shift had
to work. That man then went to the incoming fireman
—the man who was to succeed him on the incoming
shift—and explain to him any particular places where
care had to be taken. That fireman to whom he gave
information was in charge of the men that were going
to work during that shift, and it was his duty now to see
that the observations which were made by his predecessor
with reference to the safety and condition of the place
were communicated to the men working in that shift
who were affected by it, and he remained with that shift
during the whole of the day until the work was finished
at night. What was proposed by this rule was that the
fireman who made the examination during the two
hours preceding the shift should not communicate it
necessarily to the fireman who was succeeding him,
but should communicate it to the men who were in
the incoming shift. The owners contended that
that practice was not a good practice because he could
not remain long enough, for his time would not allow
him. The only alteration proposed was this: “ On the
completion of the inspection a fireman or deputy ”—not
the fireman who had made the inspection, but “ a fire-
man or deputy.” The man who succeeded himself
informed the workmen, and instructed the workmen as
to their places of work. It was suggested that the
fireman who was going to be in charge of the shift of
day workmen might go down two hours or two hours and
a-half before the commencement of the day shift, and
make the examination then, and then he could meet the
incoming shift, see that they got into the places, or were
kept out of the places where they should not go, and
then that man would have to leave the men before the
end of that shift. That was not safe, and a man who
went down and made his first duty the examination of the
places, the man who was to see the men in, was not nearly
so acquainted with the places as the man who had been
on duty the whole of the night. He did not remedy it
by merely turning the singular into the plural, but by
saying: “ On the completion of the inspection.” instead
of « he ”—that is the fireman who had made the inspec-
tion before the workmen come to work—“he shall
proceed to the appointed station, and the fireman,
examiner, or deputy may proceed ’ —not the fireman
who had made the inspection, but another fireman to
whom he had communicated. There was another amend-
ment as to the regulation, which said it was to be two
hours immediately preceding the commencement of the
work.

Mr. Wallwork said he thought in most districts,
except, perhaps, in Northumberland and Durham, the
practice was that the night fireman made the inspection
before the day shift came on, and he was the right man
to do it. When he had made his inspection he met the
day fireman at a place appointed, usually at the pit
‘bottom, and if he (witness) wanted to see both together
he often slipped down a particular pit to have a
discussion with both of them. The day fireman came
in with the beginning of the day shift. They started
winding coal at 6 o’clock. The night fireman met him
at the pit bottom, and told him the state of the workings
which he had himself inspected immediately before.
The day fireman took a note of anything that was said
to him, and communicated anything of interest to the
men working in that particular place. Then he followed
on, and if there was anything to be done, of course he
was the man who saw it done. The district where the
men might work might be a considerable distance from
the pit bottom. At the Pendleton Colliery, at
Manchester, they were allowed 70 minutes to lower the

This rule was passed as drafted.

Rule 37.

On this rule, as representing the North Staffordshire
colliery firemen, Mr. Sumnall proposed: (1) “ When
any person is appointed to be an underground official of
the mine, superior to the fireman, examiner or deputy,
but inferior to the manager and the under-manager, the
same shall be a qualified person, holding either a first-
class or second-class certificate of competency under the
Coal Mines Act.” (2) “ That such person shall make, at
the end of the shift, a report as to the condition, &c., of
that part of the mine which he has examined, in a book
kept for that purpose.”

Mr. Smillie said the miners were strongly in favour of
this amendment. They thought it would be a ridiculous
proposal, if the Home Office were really in earnest about
the matter, to allow superior officials, as they were
called, to be set up between the fireman and the colliery
manager or under-manager when that superior person
would be inferior by reason of the fact that he did not
even hold a certificate, which the firemen themselves
held.

Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis said there was a great
deal in this, if they considered the character of the
certificate that the man had to hold. This was some
person who was not an under-manager but was a person
who was placed between the under-manager and the
fireman, and he ought to have the same qualifications as
the fireman. But this amendment was that he was to
have a higher qualification than the fireman. The
qualifications as prescribed by the Act were of a
different character because of the different character
of the men.

Mr. Smillie said the firemen themselves were unani-
mously against a superior person holding merely an
equal certificate and the miners were unanimously with
them upon the point that it ought to be at least a second-
class certificate of competency. They could not
imagine how a person was going to be superior to the
fireman if he merely held the same class of certificate.

Mr. Pope said they did not want to deal hardly with
this class of official when he was called upon to act, and
he understood that on merits it was not necessary that
this intermediate class of official should hold a second-
class certificate.

Mr. Redmayne said the Home Office thoroughly
sympathised with the object that the deputies had in
view, but he did not think that they understood the
situation. The Home Office quite agreed that the
officials between the manager and the under-manager
and themselves should in very fact be the best possible
men for the position, and that they should have all the
qualifications that they had for measuring air, testing
the gas, and so on. But there were firemen and firemen.
The manager would not choose indiscriminately any
fireman to be an overman, but he would pick perhaps the
oldest and the most experienced fireman for the
position.

Mr. Sumnall said that the provision gave to the
mining student, or the articled pupil, the privilege to
come and be put between them, the articled pupil having
no experience at all, and they did not believe in the
office boy coming and dictating to them who had had to
work from their boyhood up to the present day in
mining. That was one of their chief objections.

The Referee said the rule must read in this way:
“ When any person is appointed to be an underground
official of the mine superior to the fireman, examiner or
deputy the same shall be a person holding either a
second-class certificate of competency under the Coal
Mines Act or holding a fireman’s certificate.”

The point was raised that a boy could go and present
himself at a fireman’s examination and obtain a cer-
tificate that his eyesight and his hearing were quite
good enough, and be could work out a few airway
measurements, and, according to the provision to-day,
he could be appointed as this “ or other official.” In
this Mr. Redmayne acquiesced. He could get a fire-
man’s certificate, but he could not as a fireman; he
could, however, act as a superior official.

Mr. Smillie said it was reported that one of the
training places bad articled apprentices who were well
off to study, and that they were already making arrange-
ments to have appointments of this nature—the superior
person—for those young men to be set over these
deputies; and these training places were for the purpose
of giving them the necessary training to enable them to
get a certificate. There was, as a matter of fact, a case
be knew of in which a lad of 13J years of age held a
certificate.

The Referee ultimately decided the rule as follows :
—When any person is appointed to be an underground