a—c

54

644. If that be the correct theory, would not you get more signs of the explosion in the slit than around this blown-out shot-hole? —Not necessarily, because I think the slit would be a feeder in a measure—that is to say, there would be a temporary vacuum caused, and the air would rush up the slit and fill the vacuum. 645. This theory is borne out by the evidence of the soot deposited there, which you might say is practically so much lampblack. 646. Therefore on the right of the slit, immediately above, you should have the greatest evidence of intense fire ?—Yes. 647. If coal-gas had been generated when the explosion rushed out into the slit, would it not have got mixed with a greater amount of air ?—Yes ; but at the junction with the bord itself it has got more air and room for expansion, and naturally it would expand itself near the roof. 648. Yes ; but it does not have much air till it gets to the slit ?—-A certain amount of air would come from No. 3. 649. You think you would not have the same signs of combustion at the slit as you had at the burst-out hole ?—I do not see why you should have it any more there than nearer the hole ;it was round about the hole the heaviest signs occurred and the severest heat arose. 650. Do you not think it would be as great ? —I do not think so, because the resultant gases from powder is given by most eminent authorities as containing 50 per cent, of combustible matter. That in itself is a powerful agent. 651. You saw intense charring in other places in the mine?—ln one or two places. 652. What would that be produced by?—l think in these places I saw the greatest evidence that the explosive force had been travelling in two directions and had met. 653. Assuming there was only one current of air going in one direction, can you account for one portion of the mine being more intensely charred than the other ? —I do not quite understand your question. 654. Would there be a greater accumulation of coal-dust, which would produce a greater amount of charring in that place than in another? —Naturally that place would show a greater amount of charring. 655. Sir J. Hector.] Did you observe whether the tramway in No. 4 bord could be used or not ?—I noticed the rails were very close to the side. 656. We had it in evidence that a tub could not have passed along there, showing that the tramway could not be used. 657. Is it your opinion that the tramway could have been used?—l do not think it had been used. 658. Would there be any advantage gained in working a mine like the Brunner to have a forced ventilation, as well as another ventilation, so as to send a volume of fresh air to the bottom of the mine ?—There would be nothing gained by that. 659. The Coalpit Heath Mine, I think, is now standing full of water, and delivering over into the river. That mine is separated from the Brunner dip-workings by a line of fault. Do you know anything of that line of fault ? —The only trace I have seen of it is in the drive here [indicated]. 660. So far as we know, the dip-workings are 300 ft. below the level of the water in the Coalpit Heath, and there is therefore that head of water in the Coalpit Heath at present. Is not that a menace to the Brunner Mine ? —I do not think so. The fault would act as a natural barrier, and so long as that barrier is left intact I do not see any danger. 661. If the barrier were down, would it not be possible for water to leak along the line of fault into the workings of the Brunner Mine when the coal there is removed ?—Possibly a little might, but, speaking generally, I should not say there is much danger about it. 662. Mr. Proud.] As regards the appearance of that shot-hole, do you think it was there six months ago ? —I should not think so. I only saw it by the light of the lamp, and it seemed to me to be comparatively new, as far as my memory serves me. 663. The Brunner Mine being a damp mine, would not that be against the theory of a coaldust explosion?— Yes, if it were considered a damp mine. 664. Supposing the air had been split here [indicated], and one portion had been carried around these workings [indicated], and taken by another return a considerable distance up here [indicated], would not that have been the means of most of the men being saved in ca-se they had not been beaten by the force of the explosion ?—lt would certainly have been better practice, but I should say it would depend upon circumstances, because we have the concussion in the air raising up a cloud of coal-dust, and the flame would follow it up the split. 665. Supposing you had a return on this side [indicated] ?—lf there had been another incline run parallel to the main intake it might have been better ; but as to whether it would conduce to greater safety or not I would not express an opinion. 666. But the force of the explosion might have been spent before it got to the return ? —Yes ; there would be a further outlet to a certain point. 667. Mr. Skellon.] How much coal do you think was blown off near the blown-out shot-hole? —As far as we could judge, it might have been about 16in. I could not tell how much had come off. 668. You say the return-airway was adequate for the purposes of egress. Supposing any person went into the Brunner Mine, could he find his way out by the return without a light ?—I think I could if the same amount of air was travelling as at the time I went through it. 669. Could an ordinary miner find his way out ? At the time of the accident a man would be excited ;do you think he would find his way out then without a light ? —I do not know ; some men of course are more cool than others. 670. Whereabouts did you estimate there were 16,000 ft. of air passing—through the return?— From the general evidences I saw in the main intake and main return. I did not measure it; I simply estimated it at about that amount.