§ MR. J. WILSON (Durham, Mid)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has seen a Report of an Inquiry, held on the 4th of June, to inquire into the explosion of a boiler down the pit at Usworth Colliery, 1206 County of Durham, which explosion happened on 11th April, and resulted in the death of four of the workmen; whether he has observed the following portion of the remarks of Mr. Howard Smith, the Commissioner, in delivering Judgment:—
They were of the opinion that very serious blame attached to the engineer, Mr. Elwin, who had been guilty of a most serious dereliction of duty." They were of opinion that Mr. Cuthbert Berkley, as representing the Colliery Company, was responsible for the neglect of Mr. Elwin, the engineer, and they so found. The legislation did not confer on him any power to punish, or he would punish the engineer either by fine or imprisonment";and whether, having regard to the serious nature of these charges, and the sad results of the explosion, he will state what further steps will be taken in the matter?
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,) Birmingham, E.I have only this morning received a manuscript copy of Air. Howard Smith's Judgment on the Usworth Colliery boiler explosion, which I am informed is still in the hands of the printers. I shall at once give it my careful attention, with a view to decide what further steps should be taken. I may state that the responsibility of Mr. Berkley alluded to in the Judgment apparently refers to official and civil responsibility. Mr. Howard Smith expressly says that no blame attaches personally to Mr. Berkley, and that there seems to be no evidence of any dereliction of duty on his part. It is but fair to Mr. Elwin to say that the Coroner's Jury acquitted him of criminal culpability.
MR. J. WILSON (Durham)I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in the Board of Trade Inquiry held to inquire into the explosion of a boiler at Usworth Colliery, three of the workmen were summoned as witnesses; that they lost two days' work each, incurred the cost of travelling to Newcastle, with other expenses; and that when they applied for payment, they were told that as they were workmen on the colliery affected they could not be paid; and whether, having regard to the hardship inflicted upon these men, he will order their expenses to be paid?
§ *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,) Bristol, W.I am aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers, but there is an express provision in Section 4 (4e) of "The Boiler Explosions Act, 1882," with respect to the expenses to be allowed by the Board of Trade to witnesses summoned in such cases. Every person so summoned is to be paid if he is not—
The owner or user of the boiler, or in the service or employment of the owner or user, or in any way connected with the working or management of the boiler.The three men in question were in the employment of the owners of the boiler, and I have, therefore, no power to order their expenses to be paid.