Museum
Friends of Durham Mining Museum
Events Calendar
e-Books and Books for sale
Photograph Gallery
Document Archive
Main Document Archive
Newspaper Articles
Articles by date
Articles by colliery
Personal name index
Local Record Extracts
D.M.A. Document Archive
Transactions of I.M.E.
Miners' Welfare
The Colliery Engineer
Mine & Quarry Engineering
Mining Journal
Coke and Gas
Master Name Index
Discussion Forums
What's new in the site

Mining History
Colliery Index
Colliery Maps
Company Overviews
Who's Who
Mineral Information
Managers Certificates
Educational Material
Bibliography
Statistics
Workers/Employee Lists
Notes for Family Historians

Disaster Reports
Names of those killed
Disasters in the 1700s
Disasters in the 1800s
Disasters in the 1900s
Memorials
Awards for Gallantry

Links to other sites of interest
Industrial Heritage Days Out
Former www.pitwork.net site

View our Guestbook

Index to site

Contact and address details


 Newspaper Articles Newspaper Articles 
The Times
14th September 1896

The Brancepeth Colliery Explosion

The reports to the Secretary of State on the circumstances attending an explosion, which caused the deaths of 20 persons at the Brancepeth Colliery, in the county of Durham, on April 13, 1896, have just been issued as a Parliamentary paper. Mr. J. Edmondson Joel, Barrister-at-Law, in his report, after an exhaustive review of the evidence given at the Coroner's inquiry, draws the conclusions that the explosion was caused by a shot fired in the main haulage road, with object of removing a projecting stone ; that it could not be definitely determined by whose hand or under whose orders the shot was fired ; and that the weight of evidence was decidedly in favour of the presumption that the explosion was brought about by ignition of dust, unmixed with fire-damp. Mr. Joel finds himself unable to say that either the Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1887 or the general rule 12 of that Act has been contravened, or that the special rules of the colliery have been disregarded. Whatever absence of precaution was involved in the conduct of the men who did fire the shot, the responsibility must, with the breach of authority, be taken together as resting on some one not a living person, and certainly not a responsible person having authority from the owners. At the same time, Mr. Joel does not think that the general discipline of the mine was, as regards the regulation of these main haulage roads, such as it might have been, and there was too much faith placed by the management in the absolute safety of the mine, "both because it was reputed as "non-fiery" and not "dry and dusty." "

Mr. R. Donald Bain, her Majesty's Inspector of Mines, in his report, concurs in the verdict of the coroner's jury that a shot was fired, by a person unknown, which ignited the coal-dust and caused an explosion in the cross-cut way ; and points out that the lesson to be learned is that the use of gunpowder on main haulage roads is attended with considerable risk and danger. To insure safety in a dry mine none but high explosives should be used.

 


Mail:
Webmaster

Back

Home
Copyright © 1999-2008 by The Durham Mining Museum and its contributors
Registered Charity No: 1110608
Page last updated: 01 Jan 2008


Search

Print