The Cadeby Disaster – Extraordinary Debate In Commons

July 1913


The Cadeby Disaster
Extraordinary Debate In Commons
Fierce Labour Attack On Mr W.H. Chambers.
Home Secretary’s Statement
Weakness of Mine’s Act Admitted
Mr Fred Hall’s Allegations
A Motion Withdrawn.

The Cadeby main disaster of July last formed the subject of severe comment during the course of a remarkable parliamentary debate in the House of Commons on Wednesday, and the conduct of the Denaby and Cadeby collieries Ltd, together with that, of the managing director, Mr W H Chambers was exposed to strong criticism. As a result of the debate the Home Secretary foreshadowed a considerable amendment of mining legislation

HOME SECRETARY AND THE RESPONSIBILITY.

During question time Mr Wadsworth (Labour, Hallamshire) asked the Home secretary whether he had received a copy from the miners Federation of Great Britain of Mrs Smiley and Hartshorne’s report of the enquiry held into the Cadeby main colliery disaster of July 9 last year, in which they allege there were breaches of the coal mines act; whether he was satisfied that such breaches of the coal mines act did take place and, if so, whether it was his intention to take any action against the management at this colliery

Mr McKenna, I have received a copy of this report from the miners Federation. As regards the two points on which the report alleges breaches of the Act, the chief inspector, as a result of his enquiry, came to the conclusion that the requirements of the act had not been complied with on these points, but he formed the opinion that the responsibility laid primarily with the manager, who lost his life, and that in the circumstances set out in his report and, and, in view of the fact that the fire would in all probability have been got under without accident had the directions of the managing director being carried out, proceedings could not be taken with any prospect of success against the managing director. I have addressed a letter to this effect to the miners Federation. The report of Mr Smiley and Mr Hartshorne was not forwarded by the miners Federation to the Home Office until May 30, whereas the time allotted by the Act for the institution of proceedings had expired on January.

MR CHAMBERS, NOT THE MANAGER.

Mr Brace (Labour Glamorgan South) asked whether the right honourable gentleman was aware that at the enquiry presided over by Mr Redmaine, chief inspector of mines, into the cause of the explosion, by which 80 lives were lost, Mr Chambers, managing director of the company, declared he would not under similar circumstances withdraw the workmen from the nine, despite the fact that it was a grave violation of the coal mines regulation not to do so; and whether, in the face of such a declaration, in which he wholly failed to realise his responsibility for human life, the right honourable gentleman considered Mr Chambers was a fit and proper person drive miners lives placed under his care?

Mr McKenna: I do not think it possible for me to argue the case. In answer to a question I have consulted Mr Redman on this point, and I am informed by him. There is no power under the act to proceed. If there is a case against the managing director, there would be power under section 11 of the act of 1911 Institute enquiry into the competency of the older of a certificate. If the older is performing the duties of manager, but Mrs Chambers did not perform the duties of manager, but managing director of the company. As managing director you would not be liable to any proceedings. The manager for there was killed. Consequently, both on the ground of time and personal responsibility, there is no possibility of action being taken.

Mr Brace intimated that as the reply was satisfactorily, and the matter was of vital importance, the board move the adjournment of the house to call attention to it.

HISTORY OF THE DISASTER

At 815 in accordance with notice given, Mr Brace moved the adjournment of the hours in order, he said, to discuss the matter of great public importance. The number of lives destroyed every year by mining equal roughly, the number of lives lost by the Titanic, and anything that added to the danger of so dangerous an industry demanded that the Home Office as the administrative authority should use all its resources to make mining less dangerous. He called attention to this matter on behalf of the miners Federation of Great Britain, who felt themselves very aggrieved with the circumstances involved in connection with the Cadeby main colliery explosion, which occurred on July 9, 1912. The colliery gave employment to nearly 1000 men on the day shift and 505 on the night shift, and they were faced with the peculiar situation that in the person of Mr W.H. Chambers they had a general manager, who took a very active part in the management of the colliery. Mr Redmayne’s report showed that Mr Chambers accepted the responsibility of giving the orders, and if that were so, he must accept the responsibility for the result. It was because they felt that they were faced with a situation in which a dead colliery manager was being made to carry the burden of responsibility for the disaster that they raised the matter in the house, in order to put an end to the situation which was dangerous to the lives and limbs of their people. The miner’s delegates Mr Smiley and Mr Hartshorn ascertained that the first gob fire at Cadeby occurred about 1906 or 1907, when no life was lost. A second broke out at a subsequent date. There was a third gob fire in November 1911, with which the management wrestled until April 1912. On January 20, 1912 an explosion occurred in the locality of the July explosion, and four men were slightly burned, and the whole of the men in the district came out, being very much frightened.

A LIVE GASOMETER.

It was apparent from these and other circumstances recorded in the report that the house was dealing with a mine, which was nothing more less than a live gasometer (Labour cheers) and well within the knowledge of the manager. The temperature at the face was 94°, in the air current 90° and on the intake 80°. The two explosions on July 9, 1912, resulted in the loss of 88 lives. He had never read a record that impressed him more of the danger of a mine (Labour cheers). The condition of affairs was very difficult to understand. For some reason best known to themselves, the workmen seemed to have kept silent upon the condition of the mine. The evidence at the enquiry showed that the afterdamp and the gas was so terrific that after working only 2 to 4 min men became unconscious. The conditions were such as to teach any management that there were face-to-face with a situation which, on their honour and in their solemn obligation to the men, they ought not to allow the men to go into. (Cheers) It was a wilful disregard of responsibility. (Cheers) Their dispute with the Home Office was that they were unable to bring home the responsibility the right quarter. Mr Chambers, who, after all, was the responsible man, said at the enquiry that he gave certain orders to the manager, who was dead and that had those orders been carried out there would have been no danger. The time had now come whether other than verbal orders should be given to an official. (Cheers) He (Mr Brace,) submitted to the house that no manager or official, had he been given an order to carry out a particular piece of work in a particular way would have dared venture not to carry out that instruction. They could not accept Mr Chambers evidence, and they made the serious charge that due precaution was not taken to protect the lives and limbs of the men in consequences of the very bad conditions they found the men in. What was more, despite this condition of the mine, no word was sent to the minds inspector, Mr Pickering, who gave his life to solve the problem of the fire.

MINERS LIVES SHOULD BE HELD SACRED.

The honourable member quoted innumerable extracts from the evidence given during the enquiry into the disaster bearing on irregularities and asked what was the Home office going to do in the matter? Were they going to stand idly by and allow the management to shelter themselves besides some kind of technicality, although they were violating the coal mines regulation act, which the house passed for the better protection of the lives and limbs of the miners? The record of the conditions existing in the mine prior to disaster ought to have been sufficient to teach any management that they were sending these men to their deaths unless they were protected by the providence of God. By every rule of the size of mining explosion was a natural result of the condition of affairs which was reported to have existed at the mine. In many mines throughout the country this kind of thing was going on at the present moment, and humanity demanded that for a moment they should stop in their ordinary legislative work to lay down the conditions that miners lives should be held sacred. (Here, here). There was a callousness about this accident which absolutely appalled him. While 35 bodies were lying in the pit the day shift came in, lower down the shaft without knowing of this terrible disaster. In Wales if there was disaster of half the damage, the people would have known of it and been on the spot. In the other pit the men continued working in the ignorance of what could happen and some hundreds of tonnes of coal were raised. Only when the inspectors arrived was winding of coal put an end to.

A RECENT INCIDENT.

Mr F Hall (Labour Normanton) in seconding in the motion, said for many years past there was not a man employed in this particular colliery who dared lodge a complaint against anything that was done by the management for fear of dismissal. (Cries of shame) An attempt had been made to put all of the responsibility upon the man who unfortunately was dead but the agent of the colliery was still living. The man who acted as agent at the time of the disaster was not the agent today. He did not know whether the Home Office had taken any step with regard to cancelling this man’s certificate. The man who was agent that at that time was now deputy at the same colliery, but he was, it was said, been paid exactly the same salary as when he was agent. If that were so, the reducing of the man was only a farce, and was done for the purpose of keeping him outside any prosecution. The under manager was still living, and he had been driven from pillar to post. He was a miner who had risen from the rank of work man. No doubt there was some responsibility upon him, but his certificate had been taken away. Last Monday, he (Mr Hall) had to go down to Yorkshire because of another accident at the colliery, and while it was there he was informed that there was nearly a riot in that very village on Monday night last. The reason of that was that a fatal accident had occurred through a large fall of Earth in the roadway and a man was killed, and was lying there, and the company endeavoured to force the whole of the men of another shift to walk over the dead body. (Cries of shame). He as one of the representatives of the Yorkshire Miners Association as well as his a honourable friend who represented the Miners Federation of Great Britain, desired to know what action the home secretary proposed to take to see that an end was put to the tyranny practised at these particular colliery is more than at any others in the county which he had belonged. (Labour cheers).

HOME SECRETARY’S STATEMENT.

Mr McKenna said the Home Office had always shown itself more desirous to secure the safety of the miners than he could well express in words. What had been said had not disclosed any blameable action or neglect on the part of the Home Office. He would not wish to defend his office merely on that account. The accident at Cadeby mine occurred in July last year. The circumstances which preceded the accident were exactly as described by his honourable friends. Gobfire was discovered in the mine four days before the accident occurred. That was a condition which everybody in the mine knew was indicative of serious danger. It appeared upon the evidence that the managing director of the mine, when the gobfire was discovered, he gave orders that all the passages to the locus of the fire should be built up. There was no evidence at the enquiry to rebut the statement made by Mr Chambers. It was undoubted that an examination of the mine showed that one of the passages to the locus of the fire was not built up. The result of that was that air could penetrate into the region which had been described as a live gasometer. Two explosions took place and 88 lives were lost. All those facts were undisputed. Who was to blame? There being undoubted breach of the act of 1911. It had been said that no notice was sent by the management to Mr Pickering, the inspector employed by the home office. If he had received notice no doubt he would have acted but neither the Home Office nor their agent got notice of the facts. His honourable friends had said that notice should be given by Mr Chambers but the act said notice ought to be given by the manager. The manager was dead. His honourable friends said that this was one of the cases where all the blame was put on someone who was dead and the man over him got off scot free. The charge against the Home Office was not that they were directly to blame for the accident, but that when the breaches of the act came to their knowledge they did not prosecute Mr Chambers. Mr Chambers was not the manager. The manager was killed in the accident and the fault was his. The next charge was that there was no evidence that Mr Chambers gave the order that all the passages the gob fire should be built. It was true that there was no evidence except Mr Chambers’s evidence. Then it must be remembered that no proceedings could be taken against Mr Chambers, or anyone else except within six months of the accident. The last month expired last January and the Home office had no grounds for proceeding against Mr Chambers before January 1913.

LEGISLATION PROMISED

The accident had disclosed three serious defects in the existing law. The miners act was passed no later than 1911, but such was the variety of the conditions under which mining was carried on, such were its dangers, that, however great the experience of the Department might be, and whatever precautions might be taken, subsequent experience short that the new amendment of the law was required. In the first place no action could be taken except within a period of six months after the accident, taking place. There were certain exceptions and, they did not arise in this case. What did that mean in a case like this? The accident occurred in the beginning of July 1912. It was one of the conditions of the continuance of the mine that the locus of the accident should be dammed of. Attempts are being made again and again to inspect the place where the accident occurred, but it had been found impossible to inspect the actual place. An enquiry was held immediately after, but months went by, and necessarily went by before the facts could be known. With all possible expedition, the evidence in this case was not completed until the beginning of December, five months after the accident. Report was not in draft until the end of January, more than six months after the accident had taken place. He readily admitted to his honourable friend that if a prima facie case had been disclosed in any part of the evidence on which a prosecution could have succeeded against Mr Chambers, or anyone else, an interim report would have been issued in order that proceedings might be begun within the period laid down in the act. There was no such evidence. Before the report was completed six months had expired, and the question then became one of Platonic interests. He proposed at the earliest opportunity to introduce an amendment of the Coal Mines Act extending the period during which a prosecution may be begun to three months after the enquiry the accident had been completed. The second effect arose being the construction of clause 11 layout which provided that the Secretary of State might order an enquiry to be held with a view to determining who was in default, but it did not provide for enquiry review too soon suspending the certificate Labour superior to the manager.

HOME SECRETARY AND MR CHAMBERS.

He gathered from the speech of his honourable friend that he conceived they might have proceeded to hold an enquiry with a view to suspending Mr Chamber’s certificate. He would certainly go through the evidence most carefully in view of what had been stated, that Mr Chambers had acted in the capacity of manager. Technically he was not the manager of the mine, but the managing director. But he would lay that evidence and statements of his honourable friends before the law officers of the Crown and if they advised him that his honourable friend’s statement would bear the interpretation which he had put upon them, he should be most happy to order an enquiry under section 11. He had not yet not done so because he considered that the evidence was not such as would justify holding Mr Chambers liable as manager, but there was a defect in the act as it stood, and the law should be so amended that a person superior to the manager, when he was really in truth the manager, must be liable to have his certificate suspended just as if he was the manager himself. The third defect was that while Section 67 laid down the requirements for the withdrawal of the men in case of danger in general terms, it left it open as a matter of opinion whether such circumstance has existed some days prior to the accident did, in fact, constitutive, a dangerous condition within the meaning of the clause. He was advised that should a condition of things ought not to be made a matter of opinion, and he was asking the committee , which had been appointed to consider the whole subject to report to him at once is on this limited branch of their enquiry with a view to the immediate issue of regulations. His technical advisers strongly recommended such regulations as will provide that the men ought to be withdrawn in all cases similar to those existing at the Cadeby mine prior to the accident. After the explanation he had given he hoped is honourable friend would not think it necessary to press his motion.

A CHAMPION FOR MR CHAMBERS.

Sir A.B.Markham (Labour Mansfield) said he very much regretted that this question have been brought before the house. He had no interest in the Cadeby colliery, although he was a managing director of an adjoining mine. He very much regretted that Mr Brace used his position in that house to make statements reflecting on men who were not there to defend themselves. Mr Chambers was the last man in the world not to accept responsibility for all orders he gave. He was the greatest authority in the country, probably on gob fires, and if there was a violation of the act, the honourable member (Mr Brace) was perfectly able through his association to institute, a prosecution, and have all the facts brought out in a court of law.

Mr Brace: no one knows better than the right honourable Baronet that the employee has no right to take action against employers, although the employers have rights to take action against the workmen.

Sir A.B.Markham wished to know whether the miners Federation had complained to the Home Office of a violation of the act. If there was a violation of the act then it was a duty of those who were presumed to represent the workmen to have taken that action long since. He refused to believe that those responsible for the management of the mine had the making of money as their first consideration. He had been associated with mining all his life, and was immediately interested in this neighbourhood, and he could assert that the first consideration always present to the men associated with this industry was the safety of the mine itself.

PANIC IN THE MINE.

Owing to the researches, largely of the mining Institute, he believed we were within measurable distance of making it impossible to have any great coal mine explosions in the future. He could not believe that the managers of the mine had shown callous disregard of human life is. He could not conceive that any human being could be so brutal as deliberately to allow men to go into a mine after an explosion had occurred. He knew, although he was unable to produce evidence, that no one knew at the time these men were let down that an explosion had taken place. As a matter of fact, what happened was that everyone lost their heads. It was just as well the house should know that – there was a panic in the mine. Under the terrible conditions followed a mine explosion, it was not easy to keep a calm judgement. As far as the mines with which he was connected were concerned the officials of the men’s union might go down. There was nothing to conceal. Still – unwisely, he thought – the Cadeby officials had taken a different view that. The statements made by Mr Brace were highly coloured. He admitted, however, there was danger, and it was what they had to fight against. He said most deliberately, that there was not a single mine today in Great Britain that was worked in conformity with the Mines Act. He believed there were something like 1000 regulations of one sort and another and the House went on adding to these intricate regulations and orders. It was impossible that every single detail in these orders could be attended to. After all, the manager was only really a human being, and in some mines they were 30 miles of road. If Mr Brace could point out how lives could be saved, he would have the support of the mining world, and the committee would welcome any evidence he might give or any suggestion he could make to them.

Great difficulties.

Mr Meysey – Thompson (Conservative Hands worth) said he had a large number of miners in is constituency, and for many years yet be much concern to find a means of preventing these accidents, and when, unfortunately, they occurred of minimising the loss of life will stop that debater thrown a good deal of light on the cause of accidents, and had brought out some valuable suggestion. The suggestion for the prevention by the use of stone dogs was a most important one. There were great difficulties owing to the varying circumstances under which accidents occurred and it was impossible to foresee in every case what ought to be done. He urged that the provision of life-saving apparatus should be compulsory in every district. He felt that these men ought not to be called upon to work under dangerous condition, and in this case he thought the conditions were distinctly dangerous. They were told over and over again that machinery existed for dealing with these accidents, when they occurred; it was found over and over again that they were not dealt with in a satisfactory manner by the Home Office. He sympathises with honourable members will raise this discussion and object might result in good and insert W Home Office to take proper precautions in the future.

SOLD ONCE MORE.

Mr Brace said that accepting the declaration of the Home Secretary at its full face value, he asked leave to withdraw the motion. Leave to withdraw was refused by several Unionist members, and the debate continued.

Mr Norman Craig (Conservative Thanet) expressed the hope that the Home Secretary before he too obligingly and complacently accepted the suggestions made, would consider very carefully the question of gob fires and the effect of withdrawing the men, because if a gob fire in a particular place was after withdrawal, as most men of science, said, going to create gob fires all the mine, then withdrawal was not merely closing the mine to the fire, but to the workers and creating difficulties in a very great number of directions.

Mr McKenna at 955 moved that the question be now put.

The speaker accepted the motion, and the opposition challenged a division, but the closure was carried by 262 votes to 143.

The motion for adjournment was then negatived without a division, amid prolonged opposition ironical Cheers and Labour cries of “Sold once more.”and period

Č