3

I.—4a

15. That, after receipt of the letter of the 14th day of February, 1883, your petitioners' mining manager had a personal interview with the said Inspector, and obtained leave to prospect to the north. 16. That, on the 24th day of February, 1883, your petitioners' mining manager received notice from the said Inspector to discontinue working the said mine; and thereupon your petitioners' mining manager again saw the said Inspector, who gave him permission to work the said submarine workings until the arrival of the managing director, Mr. Eich, from England. 17. That, some time subsequently to the receipt by your petitioners' mining manager of the letter of the 14th day of February, 1883, your petitioners' mining manager had an interview with the said Inspector, when the said Inspector suggested that it might be necessary to let the upper seam fill with water, and your petitioners' mining manager thereupon pointed out that the water would have the effect of softening the roof and bringing it down, also of swelling the fireclay floor, and throwing out the pillars. 18. That, during the time these negotiations were proceeding, your petitioners' mining manager pointed out to the said Inspector that the falls of roof were no worse than is usual in mines. 19. That your petitioners' mining manager also pointed out that the stoppage of the said works would cut your petitioners off from the whole of the upper district, and suggested that packs of wood, brick, or stone should be put in any place the said Inspector might wish, in order that the pumping might not be stopped ; but the said Inspector refused to allow this to be done. 20. That your petitioners could have continued working both on the dip and strike to the north if the said works had not been stopped by your mining manager being engaged in opening up the seam at that time. 21. That your petitioners applied on the sth day of July, 1883, to the Hon. the Minister of Mines for a Commission to inquire into the serious question of allowing the said submarine workings to fill with water, which said Commission was refused; and your petitioners thereupon called in Mr. Denniston, a mining engineer, to report upon the said mine, and as to the effect of the said water. 22. That Mr. Denniston reported most strongly against the action of the said Inspector in allowing the water to accumulate in the said submarine workings. 23. That your petitioners, upon the stoppage of the said works, continued to take coal from parts of land held on lease, which under ordinary circumstances it was not advisable to do, and which they would not have done if the said works had not been stopped. 24. That the effect of the stoppage of the said works was this : that the water rose to the dams which had been put in to check it in the upper workings, and then threatened to burst through and flood the lower workings; whereupon the said Inspector stopped all operations in the said workings, entirely closing the whole mine. 25. That, after the said mine had been entirely closed, your petitioners applied for a Commission of inquiry into the circumstances which led to the closing of the said mine, which said Commission was also refused. 26. That the said mine could be reopened by sinking two new shafts at a depth of three hundred feet, with a drive a distance of twelve hundred feet, to catch two seams of coal, and moving the hoisting and winding machinery, pumps, &c, to the winding shaft. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will take the allegations of your petitioners into serious consideration, and will afford to them such relief as to your honourable House shall seem fit for the purpose of the reopening of the said mine. And your petitioners will ever pray, &c. F. D. Eich. W. H. Williams. Witness to signature of the said Francis Dyer Eich—George Whitelaw. Witness to the signature of William Henry Williams —S. P. Eainey, Bank Manager, Palmerston, Otago.