THE colliery GUARDIAN.

July 1914

a person working a mine had no right to let down the surface
at all. It is impossible to work a mine without letting down
the surface. If you extract 5 ft. of coal the surface sub-
sides about 3 ft. As a general rule the surface subsides
about two-thirds of the depth of the coal extracted. The
hon. baronet (Sir W. P. Beale) says that where there is an
implied right the courts have held that the House of Lords
decision does not apply. He (Sir A. Markham) had been
very intimately associated with this particular case. The
advance of money in respect of the minerals was a very con-
siderable one, and after the decision of the House of Lords
the owner of the property said :—“ Under the decision of
the House of Lords, although you have paid for all the coal,
you are not entitled to let down the surface. Therefore, you
must pay over again.” When the matter was taken into
court the judge said that it was such a monstrous case that
if he could find any loophole to put the claimant out of court
he would do so. Having regard to the fact that a pillar had
been left for support, the learned judge stretched the law,
and gave a decision in favour of his company. He (Sir A.
Markham) quoted that case because the decision of the House
of Lords there makes every mining agreement in the whole
of the United Kingdom absolutely worthless. Unless this
right were implied, all the leases are worthless, and the
people have to pay over again for what they have already
paid. That is not honest dealing, nor is it what the Legis-
lature intended. In this particular case the minerals had
been acquired by a German syndicate, who were shortly to
work the mines in the parish of Styrrup. In the Bill a
distance of 150 yds. is prescribed, owing to the solicitor of
the landlord having put pressure on the railway company.
But in point of fact, that prescribed distance of 150 yds.
was absolutely worthless, because he had from the same
railway company an intimation that they required not 150
yds., but 600yds. to be left for the support of their line. He
asked the House whether it was reasonable, when railway
companies were coming to Parliament, as they had to do,
year by year to obtain sanction for the building of railways,
that they should use a technical point which was outside all
question of common honesty, in order to evade their obliga-
tions and defeat the intention of Parliament? The inten-
tion of Parliament was perfectly clear, and the railway
companies by taking this action are placing themselves in
a position which no honourable body of men ought to occupy.
They had their legal rights just as all other people had.,
but they had no right to be paid twice over for minerals.

The Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Maclean) said the hon.
baronet seemed to be urging grounds for the amendment of
the general law. His remarks did not seem to be relevant
to the particular railway company whose Bill was now before
the House.

Sir A. Markham said, with great respect, he was at that
particular moment referring to Bailway Bill No. 4, where
the prescribed distance is given as 150 yds., and he was
showing to the House that this clause was absolutely value-
less to protect the interests of the people with whose pro-
perty the railway was going to degl. Surely he was in order
—in the provision of powers in a Bill submitted to Parlia-
ment, where there was a prescribed distance placed within
the Bill—in pointing out that it was wholly insufficient to
meet the exigencies of the case, and that in point of fact
this 150 yds.----

Mr. Deputy-Speaker said he was afraid he did not quite
recognise the point because of the somewhat long introduc-
tion which the hon. baronet had given to the House.

Sir A. Markham continued that the railway companies
had only started to send out these notices within the last
week or 10 days. In Lancashire the railway companies
served the notices some few weeks ago; but these notices
had only in shoals tumbled into his office last week or the
week before. The North-Eastern Bailway Company and
the others concerned were not entitled to come to Parliament
and ask that 150 yds. should be left in support of these
lines, when the North-Eastern engineers were asking that
where the mine is 300, 400, 500, or up to 1,000 yds. deep,
that a similar number of yards should be left for the support
of the railway on each side, perhaps not on either side, but
for the double width. The owners of property had mis-
conceived what the real facts were in regard to the 150 yds.
If the railway companies were entitled to say, by a decision
of the House of Lords, that the natural support outside of
the 40 yds. should be left, he failed to see why under clause
30 they could not say the same thing for the 150 yds. The
owners of property, therefore, were in no better position.
The President of the Board of Trade had a very grave
responsibility in this matter. Never on any previous occa-
sion had he blocked a railway Bill. He had always thought
that it was wrong to dispute small matters on the second
reading of railway Bills, and that it was the duty of Par-
liament where large sums of money were being spent to
provide labour and facilities for more railways, that every
facility should be given by Parliament for these Bills to go
through. But here was a question of principle involved.
The engineers of the railway company were asking that
where the mine is 600 yds. deep, 600 yds. shall be left to
support the line. The Act of 1845 authorised 45 yds., and
he supposed the same conditions would apply to the 150 yds.
If the House of Lords’ decision was to be taken, and if the
railway company was entitled to the support suggested,
they would be entitled equally to the larger as to the smaller
number of the yards. One of the most eminent mining
solicitors in the country told him that this protection, if
put in for the owners of property in clause 30, would be
wholly fallacious, and in no way would help owners of pro-
perty or their lessees to overcome the difficulties in which
they had been placed by the action of the railway company.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Burns)
said the hon. gentleman who had just addressed the House
was a distinguished mining engineer, and had technical and
commercial knowledge of the subject upon which he had
addressed the House that evening. Beyond that he was
seised of great local knowledge of the district through which
this particular railway happens to run, and both from his
own knowledge and his technical experience, he had used
this particular opportunity, quite properly i n his (Mr.
Burns) judgment, to point a moral and adorn a tale, which
is that in his view clauses 71 to 78 of the Act of 1845 were
in the light of modern mining engineering somewhat archaic.
Their application was in his judgment absurd, and as mining
had changed to a considerable extent in the intervening
period from 1845 to the present day, he thought this was the
opportunity for the general law being revised and brought
up-to-date in its application as to the number of yards
within where a mining company should or should not be
allowed to work its mines, and that there should be recon-
sideration of the reasons in the Act of 1845 for a railway

company either insisting on the original 40 yds., or justi-
fying still further than they had done the increase in that
yardage from 40 to 130 or 150, and in some cases to 200 yds.
He was perfectly within his right. Although he had not
presented a petition against this Bill in that House, nor
had the mining association on whose behalf he properly
claimed to speak; still, as a member of Parliament, he was
properly within his right in bringing this subject before the
House of Commons. He referred to clause 30 of this par-
ticular Bill, and he referred to certain property through
which the railway company run. He forgot to mention—and
he (Mr. Burns) supplied the deficiency—that the distance
of 130 and 150 yds., respectively, in clause 30, as against
the old distance of 40 and 45 yds. generally adopted 70 years
ago, was an agreed clause with the owners of the land
through which this railway runs. In so far as this par-
ticular Bill and clause were concerned, his criticisms and
objections did not have the same force, that his argument in
favour of a general reconsideration applicable to all railways
and mining properties ought to have for a common rule
applicable to all railways and mines. He (Mr. Burns)
could not conceive that railway companies would light-
heartedly and capriciously do anything to damnify the
mining interests within the curtilage of their railways,
because the extent to which the railways capriciously or
foolishly limit the mining property and prevent coal from
being worked as near the railway as it could be safely
worked, having regard to life and property to the extent
to which they capriciously prevent mining from being
carried on, was the measure of the damage they inflict upon
themselves as carriers of coal. But there were times when
vested interests and large companies and great individuals
were so obsessed with their own importance that they often
did things that an enlightened self interest would prevent
them from doing. If the hon. member thought he had a
grievance against the general law, and he thought he had
some complaint, and if he used this opportunity for giving
a particular instance and illustration of the absurd character
of the general law as applied by this Bill, it was within
the competence of the committee before whom this Bill
came not to accept the prescribed distance of 130, 150, or
160 yds., even though they have been agreed to by the rail-
way company and the owners of the land in which there is
coal to be worked. The hon. baronet had been very reason-
able. He had said that no one should use the House of
Commons as a means of preventing railway companies in
the exercise of public rights getting the full exercise of their
franchise, which they get through the agency of private
Bills. He had said he had never opposed a railway company
for any local, and certainly not for any personal considera-
tion, and he only raised this point on broad, public, and
general grounds in the interests of equity and just treat-
ment of all concerned. He had asked him to give an under-
taking. He replied readily to his request, and the under-
taking he would give him was that he wTould transmit to the
chairman of the committee, and through him to the com-
mittee that deals with this particular Bill, the observations
and representations he had made. There was nothing
which prevented the committee from either accepting the
distances or rejecting them entirely, or varying the distances
of the yardage in clause 30 of this particular Bill. He
might also point out that not only mining conditions, but
railway conditions had also enormously changed. The con-
ditions that satisfied light locomotives of 10, 15, and 20 tons,
with trucks which did not carry more than two or three tons
70 or 80 years ago, were not suitable now. The conditions
had changed not only for mining, but also for railways with
their tremendous locomotives, many of them 100 tons, with
trucks carrying from 10 to 20 tons, with greater vibration
and solidity of work, requiring broader and deeper embank-
ments, with bigger slopes, and with greater reasons for
stability than the old circumstances. Whilst bearing in
mind the changed conditions of mining, we ought also to
bear in mind the changed condition of railway construction,
working, and administration, and, above all, we must also
realise, and he was glad that public opinion was very pro-
perly insisting, that railway companies should make their
railways wider, their foundations deeper, and their lines
safer than previously they were constructed. If it be true
that mining had changed, it was only fair to remember that
railways had also changed.

Coal Mines (Stowage and Packing).

Mr. Duncan Millar asked the Secretary of State for the
Home Department whether his attention had been directed
to the successful manner in which the system of hydraulic
stowage or packing of the waste had been carried into
operation at the Dalzell and Broomside Colliery at Mother-
well ; whether he was aware that an experiment of the same
kind was also being carried out in Fife; and whether, having
regard to the success of such experiments, he would give
instructions to the inspectors of mines in Scotland to report
as to how far such a system could be successfully adopted
in other coal mines in Scotland.

Mr. McKenna : The Departmental Committee on Spon-
taneous Combustion in Coal Mines is investigating the
question of hydraulic stowage of wastes from the point
of view of safety of working where the coal is liable to heat,
and I understand that the committee intend to take evidence
as to the results of the experiments made with this system
in certain collieries in Scotland, iThere seems no occasion,
therefore, to direct any separate enquiry by the inspectors.

Storage of Explosives in Mines.

Mr. Duncan Millar asked the Secretary of State for the
Home Department whether his attention had been directed
to the need for making better provision for the distribution
and storage of explosives in mines; and whether, having
regard to the dual responsibility which existed under the
present system, the absence of proper means of carrying into
and out of the mines the explosives required, and the
dangers arising therefrom, he would consider as to making
the mine owners responsible for the storage and distribution
of explosives in future, so as to secure their safe carriage
while in transit, their methodical distribution to the miners
at the working face, and their safe return, when unused,
to the store.

Mr. McKenna : I have no evidence before me pointing to
the need of altering the present system in the direction
suggested in the question. The practice of men carrying
their own explosives below ground is of long standing, and
does not appear to be attended with special danger, and no
change in regard to it was recommended by the Boyal
Commission.

Mr. Duncan Millar : Has not the right hon. gentleman
had representations made to him on behalf of certain bodies
of miners on this question?

Mr. McKenna : Yes, sir; doubtless I have, but the subject-
matter came before the Boyal Commission, and it did not
make any recommendation.

Answering further, Mr. McKenna said he would consider
the representations which had been made to him.

Lanarkshire Collieries (Rescue Stations).

Mr. Duncan Millar asked the Secretary of State for the
Home Department if he could state the particular collieries
in Lanarkshire which the central rescue station referred to
in the report of the Chief Inspector of Mines for the Scot-
land division was intended to serve; whether the sites for
the other rescue stations to be erected in Lanarkshire, also
referred to in the report, had yet been selected; and, if so,
where these stations were to be erected, and what collieries
they would serve.

Mr. McKenna : I am informed that, in addition to the
station at Coatbridge, which will serve the collieries within
a 10-mile radius of that place, it has been decided to erect
stations at (1) Larbert, for the Stirlingshire area; (2) in
the neighbourhood of Lesmahagow, for the detached portion
of the Lanarkshire coalfield; and (3) at Bathgate, for the
Linlithgow portion of the coalfield. It is not yet possible
to name the exact collieries to be served by each station,
but I understand that when all the stations are completed
the whole of the collieries belonging to the owners who are
members of the Coal Masters’ Association in Lanarkshire,
Benfrewshire, Dumbartonshire, Stirlingshire, and Linlith-
gowshire, will be provided for.

BOOK NOTICES.

Safety Lamps and the Detection of Firedamp in Mines. By

George Forster, vii. + 83 pp. (8| in. x 5|in.);19
figs. London : G. Boutledge and Sons. Price Is. 6d.
net.

This is one of the Broadway text books of technology,
and is entitled a “ first year ” volume. The object of the
author, who is organiser of mining instruction to the
county of Derby, is to give the reader a clear conception
of the principles underlying the construction of the
safety lamp, which he rightly calls the second line of
defence—efficient ventilation being the first.

Bearing in mind the purpose of the book, the only
criticism that we can offer is that the author should have
broached rather too lavishly upon controversial territory.
As a whole, however, the manual is eminently practical.
Separate chapters deal with the principle of the safety
lamp, the invention and development of the modern
lamp from the early types, the fracture and breakage of
safety lamp glasses, electric safety lamps, and the
safety lamp as a firedamp detector; whilst the Home
Office memorandum on the testing of safety lamps is
reproduced, as well as certain types of “ approved ”
lamps.

In the host of good cheap text books that is now being
placed at the service of the instructor in mining, Mr.
Forster’s little work is secure of a place.

Hand Sketching for Mining Students. By G. A. Lodge,
M.Inst.M.E., and N. Harwood, B.Sc. (London).
107 pp. (11 in. x 9 in.); 50 plates. London : Crosby
Lockwood and Son. Price 3s. 6d. net.

The authors of this book—Mr. Lodge is lecturer on
mining and mine surveying at Huddersfield Technical
College, Batley and Doncaster Technical Schools; and
Mr. Harwood is lecturer on engineering at Leigh Tech-
nical School—have had in mind a conspicuous failing of
many mining candidates; that is, the inability of the
practical man to express himself graphically, through
lack of training. At a first glance the book may appear
to be incongruous—a species of miner’s “ drawing
book,” containing an odd collection of disconnected
sketches; we think, however, that the authors’ wish, in
this instance, is to attract the student rather than to
teach him; the latter can better be accomplished by
manual instruction, and by reference to the many excel-
lent text books that teach the principles of mechanical
drawing. Consequently the introductory portion is
brief, being confined to simple hints as to methods and
the materials of construction. The remainder of the
literary matter is limited to a description of the plates,
supplemented by practical notes where opportunity
offers.

The scope of the book might, of course, be extended
ad libitum, but a fair selection has been made to illus-
trate the various directions in which hand sketching
may be of use.

Grimsby Coal Exports.—The exports from Grimsby last
week were :—Foreign, 31,860 tons, and coastal, 690, as
compared with 19,820 and 1,123 respectively during the
corresponding week last year. Shipments were as follow :—
Foreign: Aarhus, 1,414 tons; Ahus, 1,513; Antwerp, 433;
Copenhagen, 1,795; Cronstadt, 2,351; Dieppe. 668; Esbjerg,
393; Gefle, 4,352; Gothenburg, 5,373; Gustafsberg, 1,757;
Halmstad, 1,346; Hamburg, 1,330; Helsingfors, 1,401;
Malmo, 893; Norrkoping, 1,532; Odense, 1,182: Porsgrund,
516; Botterdam, 160; Stettin, 1,319; and Trelleborg, 2,132.
Coastal: To Lerwick, 169 tons; London, 97; Orford, 140:
South wold, 34; and Whitstable, 250.

Partnerships Dissolved.—The London Gazette announces
the dissolution of the following partnerships :—W. Boss
and J. B. Kennard, iron merchants, Nye’s Wharf, Peckham
Park-road, Old Kent-road, S.E., under the style of Wm.
Boss, Kennard and Company: A. Hindle and P. H.
Whitaker, carrying on the business or profession of civil
engineers, at Bichmond-terrace, Blackburn, Abingdon-street,
Blackpool, and Market-street. Manchester, under the style
of Brierley, Holt and Company: W. Griffiths and the late
J. H. Griffiths, carrying on business as coal merchants,
furniture removers, and general haulage contractors, at
Walters-road, Melincrythan. Neath, and Commercial-street,
Neath, under the style of Griffiths and Sons.