After two years had passed away, Mr. Mackworth was obliged to write to Messrs. Insole again for the purpose of calling their attention to Act 18 & 19 Vict., 108, sec. 6, which declares that special rules shall be drawn up in connection with the general rules for the use and direction of all persons engaged in each respective colliery. We append the particulars of Mr. Mackworth's proceedings in reference to Cymner colliery, and leave them with our readers. March 28th, 1852 8th, 1852 July May 24th, 1854 Sept. Sept. 6th, 1854 20th, 1854 5th, 1855 6th, 1855 30th, 1855 Mr. Mackworth inspected Cymner colliery. Inquired respecting compliance with my recommendations. Repeated my recommendations to Mr. Hay, the under-ground Repeated recommendations in my amendments to Mr. Insole's Jan. 1st, 1856 Wrote to Mr. Evans. The accident of July 15th, 1856, occurred after Mr. Mackworth's removal from the district. At the request, however, of the Home Secretary, he examined the colliery after the explosion, and gave evidence before the coroner, in which he stated that if his recommendations had been followed, in all probability the explosion would not have taken place. We refrain from repeating the details of Mr. Mackworth's experience with the Cwmbach colliery, Aberdare, another case which suggests the necessity of the proprietors, or their deputies, being considered responsible for the ventilation and working of their pits. If the sole management of the colliery rests with the owner's deputy, be he viewer, ground-bailiff, or charter-master, it is not unreasonable that such person should be looked upon as responsible for carrying out the requirements of the Act of Parlia ment. As a further illustration, we may refer to an explosion mentioned by Charles Morton, Esq., inspector of the Yorkshire district, as having occurred on the 19th July, 1856, in the Strafford colliery, near Barnsley. On examination after the explosion, Mr. Morton discovered that only 9,000 cubic feet of air per minute passed through the pit. Considering this insufficient for the purpose of enabling 40 men to continue their work with safety, he suggested certain alterations, which had no sooner been completed than the quantity of air passing through the pit was increased from 9,000 to 14,000 cubic feet per minute. Mr. Morton is * The death of one man. The great explosion occurred July 1856. of Powers of Inspectors. 165 of opinion that this amount may be still further increased. In such a case as this, to whom ought the blame to attach, if not to the proprietors or their manager? An explosion occurred at Grange Lane colliery, near Rotherham, on September 23rd, 1856. In reference to the condition of the pit, Mr. Morton states that it was devoid of ordinary artificial ventilation; inflammable gas pervaded it to such a degree for several days prior to the fatal accident, that the colliers were compelled to abandon their labour.' From the evidence given before the coroner, it is very clear that the owner himself was the party responsible for the safe working of the pit. It is true that one John Fox was intrusted with the working of the coal-pit in question, as well as six iron-stone pits; but at the same time he loaded iron-stone and coal waggons, mended roads, filled water-barrels, and carted hay; underground, he was expected to build stoppings, to fix doors, to lay and repair tramways, to remove falls of roof, to design and examine the various drifts and works connected with seven pits, to be responsible for the adequate ventilation thereof, and to supervise the persons employed therein.' Mr. Morton says that John Fox had not time nor opportunity-he certainly was not furnished with suitable apparatus and probably did not possess the requisite skill to enable him to displace the fire-damp by a current of air.' The coroner's jury, in returning the stereotyped verdict on colliery accidents, accidental death,' expressed an opinion that the pit was in a bad state of management, and very defectively ventilated. 6 If moral justice had been satisfied, the proprietor in such a case as this must have been convicted of manslaughter. The proprietor,' says the inspector in his report, was unquestionably guilty of the most reprehensible avarice, laxity, and indifference concerning the safety of his workpeople. He knew the dangerous condition of the mine, and yet he made no effort to improve it; and it is not too much to say that he was morally, if not legally accountable.' The only power which, under the Act of 1855, is in the hands of the inspector, so far as we can learn, is to summon the owners or managers to the office, and if his suggestions are disregarded, to summon them before a justice of the peace, who may inflict a light fine. If inspectors are needed, we maintain that they ought to be empowered to make alterations where it is evident that the lives of men are endangered, at the expense of the proprietary. It must not be understood that we wish that absolute authority should be put into the inspector's hands. Contrary opinions may be given about the same thing by different inspectors. In such matters as an unsafe chain or rope, an inspector might be empowered to replace it; but on such a question as ventilation, where Vol. 2.-No. 6. a difference N a difference of opinion may exist between the inspector and owner or manager, we would suggest that an equal number of inspectors and viewers might be called in to arbitrate." On reading the Act, one is surprised at its leniency towards proprietors. This surprise vanishes, however, when Mr. Mackworth tells us that at the meeting in London, during the sittings of the Committee of the House of Commons on Mine Inspection, colliery owners were represented by 49 of their number, while colliers mustered only 4, and government inspectors 6. Mr. Mackworth informs us, in his report for 1856, that during that he obtained 35 convictions of owners and managers for year violating the general and special rules. Forty violations of the rules were met with in the Ebbw Vale collieries, 20 at the Rhymney collieries, and 25 at Mr. Levick's collieries, notwithstanding that previous notices had been sent. Thousands of violations of the Act occur daily in the coal-fields. Mr. Darlington tells us that 'a commercial necessity suggested the idea of working a hundred acres to each pit, instead of five or ten, and it was the ability of practical and scientific viewers that agreed upon a system commensurate with the difficulties involved.' It may be well for a mining engineer to tell us what a commercial necessity suggested, but safety for the men ought to be the first thing considered by proprietors and managers. We have conversed with managers, ground-bailiffs, and colliers, all of whom confess that the danger increases in proportion as the work is extended. It seems to us absolutely necessary that something should be done to check unlimited extension of area; we should not then hear of such tremendous destruction of life as at Wigan, Cymner, Lundhill, or Ashton-under-Lyne. That 'method of working a pit which commences getting the coal close to the bottom of the shaft first, has long since been condemned, and we are surprised that any owners should continue to adopt it, after the fearful carnage and desolation it has caused in mining districts. We are aware that the question is one of pounds, shillings, and pence. The proprietor's justification is, that the sinking of the shaft or shafts is an expensive affair, and that it is necessary for them to begin to draw coal at their earliest opportunity. Even this commercial necessity' is but a shallow excuse for reckless disregard of human life. If the roads were driven to the extremity of the mine, and the coal procured on the homeward journey, explosions would occur but seldom, and when they did, they would not be so destructive, as the top would gradually sink, and thus prevent the possibility of gas being held in chambers. *If the owners or managers agree with the inspector, and delay carrying out the improvements, the latter might have full power. Overwhelming Duties of the Inspectors. 167 It is strange that the Act makes no reference to iron and limestone pits, of which there are thousands, and in which tens of thousands of men and boys are working daily. Justice requires that the iron-stone pits should be placed under the same law as coalpits, as in Belgium, for example. During the year 1856, as many as 35 persons lost their lives in iron-stone pits in South Staffordshire alone; and we believe that a large number have been killed in the same kind of pits during the same year throughout Britain. The partiality of the Act is seen in the eleventh section, where employers are spoken of as rendering themselves liable to a 'penalty of not exceeding five pounds,' while the working man, for a violation of the special rules, is liable to a 'penalty not exceeding two pounds, or to be imprisoned, with or without hard labour, in the common gaol or house of correction for any period not exceeding three calendar months.' This clause has rendered the Act more unpopular among colliers than any other of its provisions. At this we need not be surprised, when we remember that the violation of the general rules by employers, which may endanger the lives of a hundred, or cause the death of twenty persons, is punished by a fine of five pounds only; while the collier, for some slight omission or excess of duty, or for leaving his work without a fortnight's notice, is liable to imprisonment for three months. Had a penalty been imposed upon proprietors commensurate with their responsibilities, they would have been more likely to arrange and carry out their works with a due regard to safety. As the law stands, colliery owners, if summoned before magistrates, pay the fine, but refuse to reform their conduct. The inspectors have little leisure for inspecting collieries, the greater portion of their time being consumed in attending coroners' inquests, and examining those pits in which accidents have occurred. So much time is actually consumed in these matters, that it is absolutely impossible for some of the inspectors to go over their district in a less period than from two to three years. It is thought desirable that school inspectors should visit every school in their different districts once during each year, and factory inspectors are expected to visit all factories under their charge. Why should it not be the same with inspection of collieries? If the thing is worth doing, it is worth doing well. What is needed for the safer working of mines in general is an Act of Parliament, drawn up after an equal number of owners, inspectors, and miners have been examined. The defects of the present Act would be by such a process completely established, and evidence elicited as to the framing of another and better. The Act, however good in itself, would not be sufficient. A staff of intelligent inspectors would be requisite, to see that it was carried into effect. For the benefit of our colliers, a sufficient number N 2 number should be appointed to visit once at least during each year every pit in their respective districts, both above and below ground. Our remarks have already exceeded the limits assigned for this paper; at some future time we may recur to the subject, for the purpose of calling the attention of our readers to the social and moral condition of the colliery districts of Great Britain. ART. VI.-1. The Duty of the Church. By the Rev. Charles 2. Our National Education. By Mr. Frederic Hill. 1835. 1836. Par Mons. 5. Monthly Papers on the Politics of Temperance. Partridge: London. IF F a question possess any buoyancy, and can float upon the waters of public opinion, it is sure to be tossed into some notice when those waters are disturbed by the stormy winds of an election. During the contest which has just been terminated, candidates have been tortured and perplexed in a great variety of ways. Subjects of little moment and of great import have been placed before them by ardent advocates, and the politician has been expected to be ready with an opinion upon any topic which might be suggested. While there is much in all this that is amusing, there is something to provoke serious reflection. General questions of politics are freely discussed; but on many of the greatest social problems, gentlemen seeking to become legislators have thought but little, and have the crudest, if any opinion. The United Kingdom Alliance, an organization, as our readers know, devoted to the agitation of prohibition,' as relating to a trade in strong drink, seized with energy and propriety the opportunity which the late election afforded, to bring its views before the attention of the public, and of parliamentary candidates in particular. With several exceptions, entire ignorance of the subject characterized the replies given. A great evil was admitted -its vital and overwhelming importance acknowledged-but no intelligent remedy had ever been considered. Education was the refuge for the destitute. The politician who had never thought of the nature and results of national drunkenness could always safely fall back on that. I admit the enormous mischief, and I depend |