HC Deb 08 August 1878 vol 242 cc1547-55
MR. MACDONALD

rose to call attention to the evidence tendered at the inquiry into the cause of the Haydock Explosion, whereby over 190 lives were sacrificed; also to the verdict of the jury, which ran as follows:— We believe there has been a fouling of air connected with an outburst, or fall of roof; but by whom the gas was ignited there is no evidence to show. The explosion was caused by a faulty ventilation, and by an accumulation of gas in goaves near Evans's Place, which has been expelled from thence by a fall of roof, assisted by other fouling which was known to exist previous to the explosion by the firemen and others; and the following recommendations:— There should be two firemen's reports, one for each shift, and that the ventilation should be in future carried out according to the wishes of the Government Inspectors. The lamp system is good, but requires better supervision, and especially the machine to fasten the lead rivets should not be left carelessly in the mine. The hon. Member said that, after the discussion on mining accidents, not long ago, he would not have claimed the attention of the House had not the question been one of a very serious character. On December 26th, 1868, an explosion occurred in Haydock Colliery by which 2G persons lost their lives. An inquest was held, and the Inspector reported in terms not very flattering to the manager. He stated that there had undoubtedly been an accumulation of gas. Now, in any well-managed colliery an accumulation of gas ought not to be allowed to exist. It was a crime to permit such accumulation. If gas was there, workmen ought not to be there. But the workmen, in this case, were allowed to go into the colliery, an explosion occurred, and 26 persons lost their lives. One would have thought that after that calamity, there would have been extra care and skill in the management of this mine; but in July, 1869, there was another explosion in it, and 59 persons lost their lives by that explosion. Within eight months an explosion occurred under nearly the same circumstances, the only difference being that the Inspector declared that the mine was well managed, and the manager was an "exceedingly good manager." How a destruction of 85 lives by explosion by gas could result under the management of a good manager, he was totally unable to see. He might be told that there was neglect on the part of those who were under the manager; but he had yet to learn that the owner or the manager of a mine could relieve himself from the obligation imposed on him by the Mines Inspection Act. If the manager was not aware of the accumulation of gas, his ignorance was a crime. In about nine years after the explosion last referred to, the country was startled, on the 7th of June, by that terrible explosion which took place at this mine, whereby 195 persons lost their lives. The Home Secretary sent down a legal gentleman to see that the inquiry on the subject was properly conducted. That inquiry was, he (Mr. Macdonald) thought, searching and complete. It lasted about 10 days. Nearly 200 witnesses were examined. Many witnesses told the tale of the condition of this mine. One gentleman was so irreverent as to place the accident on Him who rules the affairs of this world. But the evidence told an entirely different tale. Ho had collected statements of a few of the witnesses to show that if the mine had been worked carefully or skilfully, the manager must have known the actual condition of the mine. He was able to produce evidence from various witnesses to the effect that many of the workmen were aware for long periods before the explosion that there was an accumulation of gas in the mine. At the coroner's inquest, three witnesses appeared in connection with the management. The first, who was a foreman, stated that there was no gas in the mine; but on cross-examination he had to admit that during weeks before gas had been oozing out and showing itself in the goaf, that barriers had to be put up, and that he had never communicated these facts to the manager of the mine. Next, the certified manager stated that it was not a gassy mine; but he admitted that he had seen gas in it. Then came Mr. Chadwick, the manager, the effect of whose evidence was that the men under him were permitted to make magazines of gas which might at any moment explode and destroy the lives of the miners, and that they thought these things were too trifling to deserve notice. Although the Inspector of the district called it a well-managed mine, it was acknowledged that none of the discipline requisite for safety was observed. The experts ascribed the explosion to a sudden outburst of gas, but three experienced Inspectors of mines were called —Mr. J. Dickenson, Mr. Hall, and Mr. Hedley—and their testimony went to show that no sudden outburst of gas was necessary to account for the explosion, and that it had been occasioned by defective ventilation. He might be told that he ought to leave the Government to deal with that matter in its own way in consultation with their Law Officers; but if he took that course, the subject would probably lie over for another six or seven months, during which time they would, perhaps, have other calamities of the same kind occurring that would obliterate the Haydock disaster from men's minds. In 1875, 143 persons were killed near Barnsley by an explosion in a mine in which, according to the verdict of a jury, the general and special rules of the colliery had been disregarded; but nothing had been done in that case. Again, in October last, 209 persons were killed at Blantyre Colliery, and the inquiry disclosed that every rule for the good government of the mine had been neglected, that men were allowed to do what they liked, to use naked lights, and to fire shots. But the person under whose management that occurred was still manager of the mine; and so far as he knew, not one sixpence was the manager compelled to pay for the destitution he brought upon the homes of the 209 persons who were killed. No step had been taken to make anyone answer in a Court for what had happened. About 25 years ago, when two serious colliery accidents had occurred in Scotland, one through fire-damp and the other through men falling down an unprotected mine, the Procurator Fiscal of the district brought the managers of the mine before a jury at Glasgow on a charge of murder; and though the verdict was "Not proven," the practical effect was to put a stop to similar accidents. For more than 20 years they had not known a similar accident, and shaft accidents were unknown. He was confident that that would be the result whenever the owners or managers of a mine were put on their trial; and he could say, from what he had himself seen after the Blantyre explosion, that popular indignation demanded the trial of those whoso negligence had been culpable. If they were not to be punished, the Government ought at once to institute an order of merit for the destruction of life. These constant disasters produced a feeling of deep resentment in the mining districts, and unless Parliament took steps in the matter, it was to be feared that the miners would become so exasperated by the constant and preventable destruction of the lives of their friends and relatives that they would take the law into their own hands. He was prevented by the Rules of the House from moving the Resolution which it was his intention to have done; but he called upon the Government to institute an active system of inspection and inquiry, and to take measures that offenders against the existing mining laws should be severely punished.

MR. BELL,

who had had some considerable experience as a coal-owner, said, he had had many opportunities of judging of Inspectors of mines; and he was bound to say, as the result of his observation, that, generally speaking, no gentlemen more carefully and honestly performed their duties than those selected by the Government. It was a question, however, whether the Inspectors did not, in many instances, have too much imposed upon them. It was impossible frequently to examine sufficiently closely the various ramifications of a coal mine; but there ought to be no difficulty in determining whether or not the ventilation was defective. He had been surprised in some calculations he had made—and which had been verified—to find what immense destructive forces were contained in a few thousand feet of gas which might easily be allowed to accumulate; but which, by constant care, could easily to detected and measured. The difficulty which colliery managers had to overcome, therefore, was to introduce sufficient air into the mine to dilute all the gas in it below the exploding point. He therefore considered it erroneous on the part of the hon. Member for Stafford to deny the existence of sudden outbursts of gas. These sudden outbursts rendered it imperative on the part of coal owners to have a large excess of ventilating power, which therefore, in the ordinary conditions of the mine, gave a great margin of safety. He thought a different organization in the mode of inspection might produce satisfactory results in reducing the number of accidents and the consequent loss of life.

MR. PLIMSOLL

urged that many accidents arose from the ignorance of miners as to the atmospheric conditions in which they worked. Their recklessness was otherwise unaccountable. He could give instances of negligence which he had noticed on the part of workmen in several mines which he had visited in South Yorkshire. In one case, an ignorant man, who was showing a party of ladies through a mine, came upon a "blower" of gas, and having a naked light in his hand, lit the gas and produced a flame as large as the great jets of light often seen in the streets of London when a gaspipe without a tap was lighted. In each of the mines to which he referred disastrous accidents had afterwards occurred, over 200 lives being lost through one of them, and 150 lives through a second. He believed that the theory of a "sudden outburst of gas" was often made to cover cases of pure and simple negligence. Although, undoubtedly, there were sudden outbursts of gas, yet there was generally plenty of warning of such an event by the bulging of the coal; and he did not believe one-half the accidents conveniently attributed to them were actually caused by them. He believed if the Home Secretary would act on the suggestion of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), and prosecute and punish, in all eases of proved negligence, the parties responsible, they would soon find a largo diminution in the number of accidents.

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY

said, that the hon. Member for Stafford had pursued a somewhat inconvenient course on the present occasion. He had brought a serious charge against the owner of a particular mine in which an accident had occurred, and had read extracts from the evidence given at the Coroner's inquest. He must be aware that the subject was under the consideration of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and that it would be impossible for him at present to express any opinion, either adverse or favourable. Not long ago there was an interesting discussion on this question. The hon. Member might, he thought, be content with that, as far as the general case was concerned; and he was hardly justified in asking the Secretary of State to give an opinion on this particular case. The debate which had taken place had been so far satisfactory that it had produced an instructive speech from the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Bell) and an interesting narrative from the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll). As soon as the Government heard of the accident at the Haydock Colliery, they sent down a legal gentleman to conduct the inquiry and to report to the Home Office. The hon. Member for Stafford was wrong in supposing that it was imperative upon the Home Secretary to send all Reports upon mine accidents to the Law Officers of the Crown. In this case, however, the Report of the gentleman who had been sent down to assist the Inspector, as well as the Report of the Inspector himself, had been laid before two eminent counsel, in order to ascertain whether there had been an infringement of the law, and if so, whether a prosecution could be sustained? Upon the opinion of those gentlemen being received, the Home Secretary would not be found shirking the responsibility which attached to him. No Secretary of State who ever administered the affairs of the Home Department was more ready to listen to abuses or to complaints which might be brought under his notice. He understood the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford to express a wish that the Government would make inquiry, and if there was negligence proved, to prosecute. The Home Secretary had always done that. Under the circumstances, he did not think the House would desire to prolong the discussion.

MR. BELL

explained that he had expressed no opinion upon this particular explosion.

MR. BURT

thought the Under Secretary of State was scarcely justified in complaining of his hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) for having brought forward this question. No doubt, it was a very inconvenient mode in which to raise the discussion, and, under ordinary circumstances, his hon. Friend would hardly be justified in taking the steps he had taken; but it ought to be borne in mind that this was the close of the Session, and there would be no other opportunity this year of calling attention to the subject. In most of the inquiries into colliery accidents, experts, mining engineers, and others— he would not say that they acted dishonestly—always endeavoured to show that the accident had occurred from a sudden outburst of gas; whereas, as a general rule, the facts were too patent that the mine itself had been a complete magazine of gas, the gas having been allowed to accumulate in immense quantities all over the workings. He was not at all denying that outbursts of gas did frequently occur, and he knew that a pit which might be safe at one moment might, from a sudden fall of the roof, become altogether unsafe. That was all the more likely to occur if there were not a sufficient margin of good ventilation to provide for such casualties; but while he did not at all question that these outbursts of gas did occur, he agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) that such outbursts were made a sort of mask to cover general mismanagement and bad ventilation. He agreed with the Under Secretary, and was satisfied that the hon. Member for Stafford would endorse the opinion, that the present Home Secretary had shown every disposition to see the law properly enforced. But while acknowledging this, he thought that in cases like the explosions at Blantyre and Haydock, where there had been such continual mismanagement, or, at any rate, very bad ventilation and laxity of discipline, it would have a good effect if the certificates of the managers were suspended. It would even be better to take a stronger step in cases where gross mismanagement occurred, by providing that those who were guilty of such mismanagement should be tried for manslaughter.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that when he saw the Motion on the Paper, he thought it right to acquaint the hon. Member for Stafford with the fact that it was absolutely impossible for him to express any opinion upon the question at the present moment. The Report of the inquiry had only been for a few days in his hands, and he had thought the best course he could take under the circumstances was that which he had very often adopted before—namely, to ask for the advice of gentlemen of eminence in the Legal Profession, and to ascertain whether any offence had been committed against the law; and, if so, whether there was reasonable evidence on which to institute a prosecution. It would then rest entirely with the Secretary of State whether there should be a prosecution or not. He did not intend to shirk any of the responsibility; but he was quite sure hon. Members would agree that the first step was to get the best advice, and to find out whether there had been an offence against the law or not. There was one observation which he wished to make. He desired to have it fully known all over the country that the Government intended to place the managers of collieries on precisely the same footing as the captains of vessels. Everyone knew, as a matter of fact, that the Board of Trade frequently instituted an inquiry as to whether the captain of a vessel should not be deprived of his certificate on account of proved incapacity or negligence. What he wanted to show clearly, not only for his own guidance, but for the guidance of those who came after him, was that under the Mines Regulation Act, those who held certificates as managers of mines were to be dealt with precisely in the same manner as those who held certificates of competency as commanders of vessels. Most persons looked upon that section of the Act of Parliament as a dead letter; but he wished to prove that it was a living reality. If there was proved incapacity or negligence, there was no right to endanger the lives of the workers in a mine by continuing a certificate. The question of ventilation was another matter which must be inquired into, quite irrespective of whether a prosecution was to take place or not; and in this case there must also be an inquiry whether the Inspector ought to have found out before the explosion whether the ventilation of the mine was defective. That question must be carefully considered, although he had no wish, at the present moment, to attach the smallest blame to the Inspector, as he had formed no opinion one way or the other. It was undoubtedly, however, a question that this, and all other cases, ought to receive careful consideration from the Secretary of State for the time being. He would only add that in every case where negligence was proved, it was his intention, whether the offenders were high or low, to put the law in motion.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

thought it was evident, from the history of the Haydock explosion, that there had been an accumulation of gas in the mine. The question, therefore, to determine was whether the inspection which failed to detect the accumulation was effective or not, and what steps were taken to secure a proper inspection. He was of opinion that until they fixed the responsibility upon those who were responsible for the management of the mines, they would make no effectual provision against the repetition of these terrible disasters.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

referred the hon. Member, as an answer to his remarks, to the Instructions which had been issued to the Inspectors of Mines during the last 12 months.

MR. BELL

remarked, that the Inspectors were fully worked, and that what was required was an additional staff, if more efficient inspection were required.

MR. MACDONALD

pointed out that in most of the previous accidents it was declared on inquiry that the cause of the explosion was bad ventilation.