Tweet

6. On the night of the 25th April, five men were at work in the Countess district. Three men were at work at the pump which was close to the foot of the stone drift, and two hewers were preparing to commence their work at the face in the innermost thirl. Only one of these men, Edward Martin, survived, and his account was naturally not very clear as to the manner in which the explosion originated. He stated that as he was standing some few feet from the face, in the act of taking off his clothes, with his lamp on the ground about halfway between where he was standing and the end of the thirl, he saw "the flame lifting at the face of the coal," and that when he first saw it the fire appeared to be at the roof, but that he saw no flame anywhere in the neighbourhood of his lamp. Immediately on seeing their danger both he and his companion, James Geddes, seized their lamps and hurried out, but were struck down by the force of the explosion when they were about half way along the thirl next to the foot of the stone drift. Martin, though considerably injured, succeeded in getting out to the top of the stone drift, beyond which point the explosion had not done sufficient injury to destroy the ventilation, but Geddes was unable to get farther than the point where his body was subsequently discovered. A man who was working at another pump, not far from the top of the stone drift, was struck down by the force of the explosion. He stated that there seemed to him to be two explosions, the first one of a light description, and the latter one much stronger in its effects. Martin, however, did not remember two explosions, but only spoke of the flame on the face of the coal, and the explosion, which must from his account have taken place after some interval, but from the injuries which he received and from the terrible experience through which he had passed, too much reliance should not be placed on his recollection of what happened, and he himself admitted that his memory was not by any means clear on the point.

7. Mr. George Baker Foster, a mining engineer of considerable experience, who had examined the locality since the explosion, suggested that the first explosion, on the suggestion that there were two, might have destroyed or injured the brattice in such a way that an impediment was formed which would allow of an accumulation of gas sufficient to account for the explosion. When he examined the place the greater portion of the brattice was blown down, there being still a small piece of brickwork still standing in the neighbourhood of the pump, and some of the wooden brattice in the first thirl not having been entirely destroyed. A considerable quantity of the gas was coming off from the coal when Mr. Foster examined the place, and he attributed the more serious of the two explosions to an accumulation of gas so coming off at the end of the thirI, rather than to the gas which was known to exist in the back drift, and which, only four days previously, was seen to have forced its way against the current of air to within 15 yards of the canvas door at the end of the drift next to the point where Martin was working. It is, however, difficult to see how the double explosion can be accounted for in this way, as it would be natural to expect that the first explosion would exhaust the gas in the immediate neighbourhood, and that any subsequent explosion following the first after an interval of a few seconds, as was the case, must have been caused by the approach of gas from some other locality. Martin's description of the flame lifting on the face of the coal is consistent with this explanation, as the disturbance caused by the first explosion would probably so disarrange the ventilation that the accumulation of gas in the back drift would be able to find its way out to the point where the flame was playing on the face of the coal, and so cause the second or more serious explosion already mentioned.

8. A further important question arises as to how the first explosion was caused. All the lamps for those parts of the workings where naked lights were not allowed were examined at a lamp station, about two miles from the shaft, and the lamp man, Henry Napier, stated that he had examined the lamp of each of the men before they went into the Countess district on the evening of the 25th April. The five lamps belonging to the men in the Countess district were found not far from the place where they were working, those of Martin and Geddes being at the point where they were struck down by the second explosion. The glasses were broken, and the lamps were covered with dirt and smoke, but were otherwise uninjured. They were sent to be cleaned, with instructions that they should have fresh glasses put in, and that the lamps should be brought back screwed up exactly as they were found. This was to be done by Thomas Hetherington, who was stated to be competent and experienced in such matters. When they were brought back it was found that Martin's lamp was not properly screwed up, and on its being placed in a box charged with gas specially constructed for the purpose, it immediately ignited the gas and caused an explosion. The other lamps were tested in a similar manner, but appeared to be quite safe. Hetherington, upon examining the lamp, stated that he must have by mistake changed the gauze with that in Geddes' lamp while cleaning them, and on the exchange being effected, both the lamps answered perfectly. This explanation, however, cannot but be considered as eminently unsatisfactory. That a man in Hetherington's position should have made such a mistake, when he must have known the importance of keeping the lamps separate from one another, must throw great doubt on the accuracy of the subsequent statement made by him, and must show the impossibility of relying on the examination of a lamp man through whose hands in many mines hundreds of lamps pass during the day. Martin's lamp was brought in by Hetherington as being m perfect order, and fit to be sent down into any dangerous part of the mine, and yet, on being handed to Mr. Willis, was immediately discovered to be in an unsafe condition, and on being tested exploded immediately. The unsatisfactory result of this examination must therefore leave the question of how the gas ignited in a state of great doubt, but in the absence of any other possible suggestion, the only explanation is that the gas ignited from either Martin's or Geddes' lamp, and the result of the testing of Martin's lamp certainly points to that one having been the lamp from which the fatal accident originated.

9. The system which was in use in the Countess district of depending upon brattice for the ventilation of so great a length of underground working, especially at such a distance from the shaft, must be described as unsatisfactory and unsafe, and although, while the stone drift was being made, and until another communication could be opened up, it might have been necessary, no time should have been allowed to elapse before such a communication was effected, and it is certainly open to question whether any men should have been allowed in that part of the workings except those actually employed in carrying it out.

In the present case two months had passed without anything being done, and the two men, Martin and Geddes, were working at the coal as ordinary hewers, and not in connexion with the proposed alteration in the system of ventilation.

But in addition to this, these men were allowed to work in that part of the mine when it was known that considerable quantities of gas were in the immediate neighbourhood, and when, apart from the unsatisfactory system of ventilation, the existence of such a danger should have pointed to great caution.

10. In conclusion, I have to submit, for the consideration of the Secretary of State, whether proceedings should not be taken against the certificated manager, Mr. William Harker, under section 32 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1872; or whether a prosecution should not be instituted against him and one or more of the officials of the mine under the said Act for the breach of G. R., No. 1, of section 51.

Arnold Morley

14th July 1882.