Description

Explosion of Gas. Blaengwaur.

This is an extensive colliery in the Aberdare Valley, belonging to Mr. David Davis.

On the morning of the 8th of March an explosion of gas took place at this colliery, and was attended with serious loss of life. Thirteen men and boys were killed by the explosion and its effects. The colliery at this time was under the management of Mr. David Davis, jun., son of the proprietor, and Richard Richards was his under viewer. It appears that on the morning in question the men proceeded to their working places as usual, and from the evidence of William Terrant, a collier who worked in this part of the mine, that on entering his stall or working place an explosion of gas took place, and at his naked light. I made a careful examination of the colliery a few days after, and found the explosion occurred in the workings of the 4 feet coal, a considerable distance from the bottom of the shaft. The air passed along an engine plane, which is about a mile in from the shaft, then through the working places and back the return air way to the bottom of the upcast shaft. This return is in many places small. The ventilation of the working places at Terrant's stall was wholly dependent on a single door left in charge of a boy only 10 years and 3 months old. Last year I had to report an explosion at Mr. Davis' colliery ; I recommended then, and after by letter, the use of locked safety lamps, and had my suggestion been carried out this explosion would not in my opinion have taken place. The under viewer is unable to read, write, or speak English, how can it be expected that he will inform himself of the requirements of the rules and teach others.

Richard Richards said at the inquest: "I am overman (under viewer) at Blaengwaur colliery. I have been so for 7 or 8 years. I cannot read, write, or speak English. When the explosion took place I was near the bottom of the pit, it was about 7.30 in the morning ; directly on receiving information from one of the hauliers that an explosion had occurred, and having ascertained it was in a part of the mine known as the 'Crimea workings,' I went there as soon as possible, and on the engine plane met William Terrant, a collier ; he was burnt, and on asking him where it had happened, he said with me in my stall ; it was some time before I could get into the workings, I did so that evening and remained until all the bodies were out. I know something of the rules ; they have been read to me. I consider it my duty to see the places are kept safe for men to work in. It is the duty of the fireman (or deputy) to go around in the mornings before the men come in."

The accumulation of gas in Terrant's stall took place in the night previous, and in my opinion was from insufficient ventilation and the single door left open. The fireman if he had examined that stall in the morning ought to have discovered the gas ; I am inclined to think Terrant's stall was left without examination. Believing this explosion occurred from a nonobservance of the first general rule, there was not "an adequate amount of ventilation to dilute and render harmless noxious gases to such an extent that the working places of the pit and the travelling roads to and from such working places shall under ordinary circumstances be in a fit state for working and passing therein."

In accordance with your directions, I instituted proceedings against the owner, Mr. David Davis, for a violation of the first general rule ; and to prove my case, William Terrant was examined, and said he found the gas in his working place in proceeding along the travelling road, and the explosion took place at my naked light.

The magistrates took time to consider their decision, which I give at length.

Mr. Fowler, the stipendiary magistrate of Merthyr, gave the decision of the bench. He said :—

"This was an information laid against the owner of the Blaengwaur colliery, for an alleged violation of the first general rule. That rule requires that an adequate amount of ventilation shall be constantly produced to such an extent as that the working places of the pits and levels shall, under ordinary circumstances, be in a fit state for working. The facts are that on the morning of March 8th an explosion took place in heading No. 10, when a collier named Terrant entered it with a naked light. The stall had been previously examined by the fireman, and found safe. It is admitted that the workings are in general adequately ventilated, and the cause of the explosion appears to have been an exceptional and local accumulation of gas. The Inspector proved the fact of the explosion, but did not supply the bench with evidence as to the causes which led to such accumulation of gas, which, doubtless, he had been unable to ascertain with sufficient certainty. But from the evidence given by the defendants, it seems that the ventilation of Terrant's stall depended on a certain door being kept shut, and that the real cause of explosion was the keeping open by some of that door by which the air which would have cleared the stall was sent in another direction. Assuming this to be the cause, was the proprietor liable in any form for this result? First, what is the scope of meaning of the first general rule ? It appears to me to refer to the general management for the ventilation of a mine, by the proper construction of airways, doors, and other contrivances for the dilation of noxious gas. To use the language of the rules, if he has made such due provision for the proper ventilation of the mine, he has done his part ; if he were to neglect or refuse, wilfully and knowingly, to adopt measures that are necessary for the safety of the mine, he would be responsible for the omission in one form or other. But having adopted such measures, it appears to me that he is not liable for the wilful negligence of others, or for any unforeseen accident. The liability may be tested by supposing a charge of manslaughter to have been founded on these facts ; could a bill have been preferred against the owner ? I think not. The rule is, that the negligence must be personal, in order to make it culpable and criminal ; but in this case, supposing the gas to have accumulated from the neglect of any one, it would seem that that guilty person was the deceased door-keeper, or some other person unknown, rather than the defendant; and if a charge of manslaughter had been contended at the trial, that it was quite possible and consistent with all the facts, that the explosion was caused by an escape of gas from some fissure or blower which had broken out, and had exhausted itself in a very short time. It seems to me that the possibility of such a cause was not sufficiently negative, and if such a supposition is at all reasonable, no conviction could have taken place at the supposed trial ; and if such a defence would prevent a conviction of the defendant for manslaughter, so it would equally prevent a conviction on the present charge, for the general rule is not meant to make an owner responsible for the extraordinary conditions and circumstances, that is, for casual and unforeseen occurrences, and for the malicious or negligent acts of servants, but only for the general condition of the mine, in connexion with its ventilation; in fact, if it were otherwise, and an owner were held criminally responsible for the negligence of subordinates, few men would venture to be the occupiers of a colliery. But it may be said that the owner is liable, because the door which has been referred to was not self-acting, and was not double. If the explosion may possibly have happened from a blower, it would be needless to consider these points, but as that supposition may not be sound, I have considered these suggestions also with regard to the construction of the door. There is no evidence to show, with perfect certainty, that it would not act, and that it was not, in fact, propped or wedged open on the morning of the accident. In the next place, I am unable to determine with certainty whether it is a main door; I am disposed to think that it is, and if so, that it ought to be doubled. But in that case, I think the proper person to be summoned is the overman or underground agent, and not the owner ; for the certified special rules make it a distinct part of the duty of the underground agent, deputy, or overman, to see that the doors are rightly hung and constructed. As the rules thus fix a special duty upon certain officers, so, I think, a violation of them must be specially charged against these officers in a summons, setting out the special offence in the language of the rule.

"On the whole, therefore, I think that if the door itself was faulty, a charge might be made against any officer whose duty it is made to see to it, and that if it was rightly constructed, but was maliciously or negligently wedged open, a charge might be successful against the person so acting; and that if the explosion might possibly have suffered from a sudden escape of gas from the coal, no one could be charged. Looking at rule 19, I think that if there had been no doors at all the manager and owner might have been charged with the offence of not producing adequate ventilation, under rule No. 1, general rule; but that, having provided doors, the particular construction of them was part of the duty of the overman to see to, under rule 19."

Thirteen poor fellows lost their lives by this explosion. Terrant who fired the gas was proceeding as was the custom with a naked light, — he was not to blame ; if it were due to the careless act of a doorboy surely some one is responsible, employing a boy at the tender age of ten years and three months at so important a position of trust.

It was difficult to prove how the gas accumulated ; it might have been the door was left open or there was insufficient ventilation to dilute the gas given off. The door was a main separation door, and ought to have been double. I agree with the magistrates that the owner of the colliery is not liable for such details when the duty is imposed on the overman by the special rules. But I do not think the special rules can override the general rules, for surely if the owner appoints an incompetent person to carry out a specific duty no special rule can relieve the owner of responsibility.

Memorial: 1861 Blaengwawr Colliery Disaster

Related Articles

Sources

• 1861 Mines Inspectors Report, by Thomas Evans, H.M. Inspector of Mines, Page: 116, Accident Number: 18
• 1861 Mines Inspectors Report, by Thomas Evans, H.M. Inspector of Mines, Page: 125

Researchers

 Return    Return to Top