Minutes of evidence taken before the Royal Commission on metalliferous mines and quarries : volume 1.

  • Great Britain. Royal Commission on Metalliferous Mines and Quarries.
Date:
1912
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Minutes of evidence taken before the Royal Commission on metalliferous mines and quarries : volume 1. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by Royal College of Physicians, London. The original may be consulted at Royal College of Physicians, London.

    73/406 page 65
    7 July 1910.] Mr. J. S. Martin. [■Continued. 1853. You would agree with those views ?—Yes, distinctly. The Cornish miner is a very wonderful person. He travels the world over, he mines in all parts of the world and under all conditions, and then he conies back home. There is no person with a greater intention or desire to come back home to his own country than the Cornishman. A number come back to die in a few months from phthisis. 1854. Now we come to the quarries. The Quar- ries Act of 1894 was the first legislative measure with a view of providing for the inspection of quarries ?—Yes. It is a short Act which embodies certain sections of the Metalliferous Mines Act. 1872 and 1875. It provided for the establishment of Special Rules, but left it optional to the owners or the Secre- tary of State to propose them. It was found that it failed to provide for various questions which were met with when being administered. One of the principal questions is that of ownership. 1855. Have you read the evidence given about the difficulties of ownership ?—Yes. 1856. I suppose you are in general accord with that, that -the ownership of a quarry is a difficult thing to determine, and it would be a good thing if we could take steps to make more clear who is respon- sible for carrying out the rules ? — Distinctly. It comprises all quarries having a depth exceeding 20 feet in any part. 1857. Has that been the subject of difficulty?—I have not found difficulty with regard to it myself. The method of ascertaining the depth has been the source of frequent discussion, and, although I have personally had no trouble, it should be provided for if the question of depth is to continue the definition of a quarry under the Act. I have heard it discussed, and I was given to understand that it had created difficulty in places. 1858. What difficulties have arisen with regard to ownership ?—The question of responsibility has caused much discussion, and resulted, in some legal proceedings which were taken, and what appeared to me to be strange decisions. For example, a person is constituted the owner, as regards this Act, of a quarry who has no authority over the persons employed so far as employ- ment or dismissal. It may be all right, but it seems a hardship. Thus the owner of the property receiving a royalty, if he grants a license only to work mineral, remains the responsible owner under the Act, although the licensee employs and dismisses the men over whom the owner has no authority. 1859. Are you of opinion that the Act should be amended and consolidated ?—The Quarries Act should be amended and made complete in itself, and thus supersede the present Act, the Factory and Workshop Act, the Employment of Children Act, the Notice of Accidents Act, the Explosives Act, and any others which have reference to quarries. It is unreasonable to expect quarry officials or workmen to master all these Acts, or even know of them. 1860. Have you had difficulties about responsibility in regard to the question of quarry owners ?—I have in various cases, and have been unable to find an owner in the case of parish quarries. Others in case of rights under Enclosures Act, &c., the Great Torrington Common Act, 1889, referred to by Mr. Delevingne, Again, in the Town Quarry at Weston-super-Mare, where I had complaints with regard to stone being thrown by blasting, to the danger of the public and damage to property. There were repeated com- plaints, and they went on for a length of time. I failed to arrive at a responsible owner, and ultimately the Home Office informed me that there is none, and to let it stand over for future legislation. In the case of a fatal accident in a parish quarry at Lancing, in Sussex, there was no one could be made responsible. 1861. The Quarries Act is sometimes mixed up with the Factory and Workshop Act?—Hopelessly so. It is most confusing as to where the one begins and the other ends. 1862. Especially as some quarries are very small, is it desirable that there should be a simple code applicable to them that people can understand ?—The Act should contain General Rules which would 0 1880 practically do away with the necessity for Special Rules. 1863. What improvements would you suggest with regard to the returns of persdns employed in quarries ? —I would suggest thac instead of returns of persons employed inside the quarry and outside the quarry, the division should be persons employed in quarrying and removal of the mineral to the place of loading for sending away, using, or dressing; and those employed in or about the quarry in dressing stone or preparing it for use. 1864. The returns should come on the 20th January ? —Yes, the returns should be simultaneous with the Coal Mines Regulation Act and with the Metalliferous Mines Act, the 10th January might be fixed, and I think the returns would come in much better. 1865. Would that give time enough after Christ- mas ?—I have no doubt it would, as the explanation of the lengthened period and not receiving them in time has been because they are laid aside and forgotten. 1866. The information as to explosives, which is voluntary, ought to be provided for by the Act ?—Fes. 1867. Then as to returns from single quarries ?— The returns should be required from single quarries where they are worked separately and independently, but in groups where the same men are employed in several, as. for example, in district council quarries, that is road quarries, in several of which the same two or three men work for a month or so more or less, and seldom three months, the returns are usually filled UP for each, showing in these small quarries that the quarry was wrought by two or three men, who only worked perhaps a month in it, and then went to the next, where the same thing occurs, and thus 15 to 20 are returned as employed instead of two or three. 1868. The same man appointed over and over again ? —Yes. 1869. You think the posting up of the abstract and Special Rules in small quarries ought to be done away with ?—I think so. 1870. Why is that? Are the rules constantly- washed away by the rain?—They are subject to the conditions of weather. They are posted up generally on a board or a sheet of zinc. That I have advised, and they are covered with varnish, but they become very soon defaced, and they are generally in the small quarries put up on a post 7 or 9 feet high, to keep them out of mischief's way. 1871. Which prevents them being read?—Quite so. They are useless. 1872. What can we do with regard to the rules in small quarries ?—I would suggest that an owner should, on employing a man, give him a copy of the rules, and, for his own safety, or to show that he has done so. receive his acknowledgment in writing, and that, say, once a year, another distribution should take place. 1873. You woidd post them up as before?—Not in the small quarries. 1874. You think it is quite useless ?—Quite useless. 1875. (Mr. Redmayne.) Could they not be stamped out on metal and put up ?—They are generally stuck up so high. 1876. Notices such as I allude to would resist defacement ?—Not if you get. stones thrown at them. They are generally enamelled. 1877. I mean the stamped ones?—Then they are illegible. 1878. Not if the lettering is painted every now and again ?—I cannot say that I agree. 1879. I have seen them done in that way ? They may be. but they are useless. It is a farce, in fact. 1880. (Chairman.) Could they not be put up with a little wooden boarded roof over them ?—They put a shelter half the width of this over them. 1881. You want about 12 inches. If put up with a particular kind of paste they will stick a long time tJ If you see a sheet like this stuck up 7 feet”high, you look at it and say, “ Good gracious me, what is the o-nod of that ? ” 1882. (Mr. Redmayne.) Level with the man’s eyes ? —A boy takes up a stone, and it is a fine cockshy. E
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3