Durham Mining Museum - E. Stubbs (original) (raw)

Shaft accidents.

The most serious accident in my district during the year, No. 77 in the "list," by occurred on Wednesday evening, November 16th, at the Withymoor Colliery, near Rowley Regis, which is worked by Messrs. Edwin and Joseph Nock. A skip containing eight men and boys was being raised at about a quarter past six o'clock, when the chain caught on one of the horns of the drum, and falling off upon one of the angles of the square "drum-shaft," snapped, and the skip, with its eight occupants, fell a distance of about 70 yards, a length of chain of about 90 yards falling upon them. All the poor fellows were killed on the spot. An inspection of the pit and the "winding apparatus" after the accident rendered the cause of this terrible calamity evident. The chain was a very good one, and on being tested bore a strain of 19 tons 3 cwts. The defect to which this serious waste of life was due was that the pit-frame which supported the "pulley," over which the chain worked, had been allowed to get out of the perpendicular to the extent, as I ascertained after the accident, of about 15½ inches, the result of which was, that the chain caught on one of the "horns" of the drum on the side towards which the "frame" leaned, which it was clear had been the case for some time past from the wearing of the horns on that side ; and when the accident occurred, as was stated by the man who was working the engine, the chain first caught on the point of one of the horns, and as the drum revolved, fell off upon the square drum shaft, the sharp angle of which, with the force of the concussion, caused it to snap.

Three separate inquests were held in respect to different sufferers, and one of these was presided over by Brook Robinson, Esquire, coroner for Worcestershire ; and the other two by Edwin Hooper, Esquire, one of the Staffordshire coroners.

The cause of the accident was clear, but the juries, as is often the case, experienced considerable difficulty in ascertaining who was responsible for the defective state of the winding apparatus; and the result was that each jury returned a verdict involving the charge of manslaughter, but in each case against different persons, the last which sat expressly exonerating the persons committed for trial on the finding of the juries which had sat previously.

It was fully proved by the evidence given at the inquests that the frame which supported the "pulley" had been sinking for a considerable time, owing to a subterraneous fire a few feet below the surface, which caused a continuous subsidence, which had been greater on one side than the other. The frame had often been adjusted in consequence, by raising the depressed "leg." At this, as at other collieries in that part of South Staffordshire, work had been entirely suspended for some weeks, until within a very short time of the fatal occurrence, by a strike of the colliers; and there is little doubt that during that time the subsidence had gone on to a considerable extent, and it was proved that, to use the words of the workmen, the leg of the frame had been several times "pecked up" since the working of the colliers had been resumed after the strike. It was evident that grievous neglect had been shown in not more carefully watching the subsidence which was well known to be going on, and in not taking effectual means to make the "pulley" frame firm and true. The difficulty was to see who was responsible for this neglect.

The partner, who took the general management of the colliery, was Mr. Edwin Nock, and up to three weeks before the accident there was a "head engineer,"Crispin Southall, who took the general oversight of the engines and winding and pumping apparatus at the various pits, and who stated that the sinking had been going on for twelve months before the accident, but that he left the frame upright and in good order when the colliery started after the strike, and that whilst he was engineer Mr. Edwin Nock had given him strict injunctions to examine it every day.

At the first inquest Mr. Nock stated that after Southall left he employed in his place an engineer named James Leedham, and the jury evidently inferred that this man tookSouthall's place as head engineer.

The engine-man, who was working the engine where the chain broke, was Francis Downing, and in his own evidence he said the frame had been raised two or three times during the month previous to the accident, and was so raised four days before ; and he also said that the chain rubbed against the horns and the flange of the pulley, and he acknowledged that he did not consider the machinery safe to work that day, yet he never made any complaint to any one.

The banksman deposed, that when the frame was raised it was done by the orders ofZechariah Mason, the manager of the colliery, and he said he had mentioned the sinking of the frame to "Mason" a few days before the accident. Mason was himself called, and said he knew nothing about the machinery being out of gear, and that no one had told him of it. The result of this first inquiry was a verdict of manslaughter againstZechariah Mason, as manager of the pit, and Joseph Leedham as head-engineer.

At the second inquest, before Mr. Hooper, coroner for Staffordshire, Mr. Edwin Nock, one of the proprietors, stated that Downing, the man in charge of the engine in question, was alone responsible for the machinery at that pit; that Leedham had nothing whatever to do with the pit where the accident occurred ; and that Mason was only the "deputy or doggy," and was not responsible for the machinery. The result of this inquiry was a of manslaughter against Mr. Edwin Nock, one of the proprietors of the colliery.

At the third inquest, also before Mr. Hooper, it was shown that Mason went down the pit on the morning before the accident, and he said that the skip did not touch the side of the shaft. The banksman said he told Mason that there was something wrong about the winding machinery, but did not think there was any danger; but Mason said he had no recollection of being so told. The result of this inquiry was that the jury returned a verdict of manslaughter against Francis Downing, the engineman, specially exoneratingMr. Nock and Leedham and Mason, against whom previous juries had returned verdicts of manslaughter. All four now await their trials at the ensuing March assizes, but the contradictory verdicts of the juries, and still more the accident itself, shows the want in this, as in very many cases, of better discipline, and especially of a more distinct vesting of responsibility in particular persons.

It is clear that with the plain indications of danger which were manifest, and of which the workmen themselves on one occasion had complained, that more effectual means than merely "pecking up" the frame day by day should have been taken, to render secure that on which the lives of so many persons were daily depending. The cases being now sub judice, it is not desirable to say more as to this melancholy accident.

• 1864 Mines Inspectors Report, by James P. Baker, H.M. Inspector of Mines, Page: 106
• 1864 Mines Inspectors Report, by James P. Baker, H.M. Inspector of Mines, Page: 119, Accident Number: 77

If you are researching E. Stubbs (e.g. for family tree purposes) and you would like to hear from others with the same interest then please complete the details in the following form. We will show the information you provide on this page so that you can be contacted.

Return Return to Top