Letters to the Editor

The Walker Colliery Explosion

Sir,

I have read the letter in The Times of to-day in justification of the coroner's verdict on this murderous explosion, but I can find nothing in it to induce me either to retract or modify the opinion which I ventured to express in your columns respecting that verdict. I again assert that the inquest has thrown no light on the cause of the disaster, and that, consequently, the positive conclusions at which the jury arrived — namely, "Explosion, purely accidental," was mere conjecture, and not a deduction from established facts. The author of the letter above referred to asks, "In this condition of things, to what other decision could the jury have come ?" I answer, to that which I suggested, "Explosion, of which the cause is unknown." Such a verdict would, at least, be an honest expression of ignorance, and in entire accordance with the evidence. It is not my intention even to insinuate that in the matter of this explosion blame attaches to the proprietors or managers of the Walker Colliery. Ventilation may have been perfect, the use of naked lights forbidden, the strictest discipline enforced, and, in short, every precaution observed to protect life. Nevertheless, in this colliery an explosive mixture of gas had accumulated somewhere, though no one can say where ; there was a naked light, though no one can say whether it was a defective safety-lamp or a Lucifer match ; and, if the former, whether it was supplied by the lamp-man in a defective state, became accidentally injured, or was intentionally opened ; and yet, in spite of all this doubt and uncertainty, the jury seem to have had no hesitation in authoritatively pronouncing that the explosion was "purely accidental." I am not aware that even a coroner's jury is infallible ; and if there had been any doubt on this point it would be removed by the verdict in question. That I may not be charged with having misinterpreted the evidence, I beg, Sir, to submit to your special consideration the following extracts from The Times report of the inquest, from which it will clearly appear that no small amount of obfuscation prevails as to the cause of the explosion. The master-wasteman deposes that "he never saw any gas in the pit ; but they wrought with the Davy lamp. . . . . There are goaves in the pit, but he never saw any gas." The back-overman informs us that "the indications of gas were trifling." So there was gas. "The gas he saw was two walls north and two pillars west from the return on the low side of the dyke, in the face of a wall. Had never seen gas outside of the goaves. He believed that the goaves were clean. He could not tell where the gas had come from, or the seat of the explosion. Had his lamp in the north juds of the goaves on the morning of the explosion. There was as much air as usual, though the furnace was slackened." How could this be ? Another overman stated that he "could not form any idea where the explosion took place. . . . . Never saw any gas on the edge of the goaf. Had found four Davy lamps broken. One was not locked. It was found in the west, contiguous to the goaf. It was the deputy's lamp. Every viewer's lamp was locked. The deputy's lamp was half screwed on. There must have been a great accumulation of gas to have caused the explosion from the damage that was done." The lamp-man declared that the lamps "were in good repair and perfect." Suppose the contrary, this witness could not have been expected to criminate himself. The resident viewer enters into minute details as to the amount of air circulating through the workings ; but his evidence is not very material ; for, however perfect the ventilation may have been, yet the stubborn fact remains that an explosive accumulation of gas existed somewhere in the pit. This witness "examined the place where the men were firing a shot in the 'trouble,' but could not form an opinion whether the explosion had taken place there or not," though he adds, "there was not the least indication of the explosion having occurred" in that locality. We have next the evidence of a viewer of great experience, who examined the colliery, "very minutely." From the appearance of the timber, where the men had been blasting, "he was satisfied that the explosion did not occur there." . . . "It was his opinion that the explosion had occurred either from a defective lamp, or from an injury to a safety-lamp. . . . It was also his opinion that the quantity of the gas had not been much, or else the damage would have been considerably greater. . . . All goaves have gas in them. . . . He thought that when one of the juds next the goaf was drawn a day or two before the explosion it had not fallen, but that it fell at the time of the explosion, smashing the lamps, and originating the disaster." Another viewer says, "The goaf was exceedingly small, and the amount so short that he thought the diminished air (from slackening the furnace !) at the time of the explosion was sufficient." It was further given in evidence that the last accident in the pit, three years ago, was caused by a man removing the top of his safety-lamp." Such are the facts and opinions which led to the verdict, "Explosion, purely accidental !"

In colliery explosions great destruction of life has been frequently caused by the after-damp — that is, the carbonic acid resulting from the combustion. There would not, I think, be much difficulty in contriving a simple and effective apparatus to enable the collier to breathe for some time with impunity an atmosphere strongly contaminated with this noxious gas. Although we have no exact analytical data concerning the proportion of this gas in the atmosphere of a colliery immediately after explosion, yet there can be little doubt that it generally contains sufficient oxygen to support life for a time, provided the associated carbonic were removed. I would especially direct the attention of investors to this subject.

Permit me, Sir, to add a word in reply to the gentleman whose letter appears in The Times of to-day respecting the spontaneous inflammability of marsh gas. His explanation, I am sorry to confess, appears to me exceedingly lame. In his letter in The Times of November 1 is the following passage :— "It (Will-o'-the-Wisp) is evidently nothing more than ignited marsh-gas (carburetted hydrogen), the same gas which spontaneously inflames in coal mines." That spontaneous ignition of the coal sometimes occurs in collieries I know full well from sad experience, but I would ask the author of the letter in question whether he can point to a single well-authenticated case of an explosion underground having been traced to this cause ? But, admitting that he can, what this can have to do with the alleged spontaneous ignition of marsh-gas on the surface of the ground I am utterly at a loss to conceive.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

Dec. 5.

Y.