Dawley Colliery Shaft Accident – Wellington – 1872

DAWLEY. Wellington, Shropshire. 6th. December, 1872.

The colliery was the property of the Coalbrookdale Company and eight men lost their lives in a winding accident in the Springwell Pit. The banksman at the pit, William Morris, was standing at the pit head when the men were coming up at 4.30 p.m. They were the first to ascend the shaft after the shift was finished. He gave an eye witness account of the accident:

I was looking towards the back part of the pit and saw the chain fly back to the engine. I did not see the other end go back down the pit. I should think, in my opinion, that the men had come up about 40 or 50 yards, but those who understand these things better than me, say they had come up only twenty yards. I heard a report of a kind of breakage when the chain went and I rose my head to see what was the matter and I saw the chain breaking from the pulley. It was at a  pulley just over the pit head. I saw the chain dropping from the pulley and go back towards the engine. I saw the links that were broke.

The men who lost their lives were:

• John Davies of Brandlee aged 19 years, filler.
• Isaiah Skelton of Little Dawley aged 16 years, miner.
• Edward Jones, a miner of Stocking aged 21 years.
• Allen Wyke of Finney aged 20 years, miner.
• Robert Smith of Holly Hedge aged 18 years, miner.
• William Bailey a married man of Finney aged 21 years.
• John Parker aged 22 years, miner of Holly Hedge.
• John Yale aged 21 years, miner of Dawley.

The inquest was held at the Crown Inn Little Dawley before the Coroner Mr. R.D. Newill. The company was represented by Mr. Burd, Messrs. Norris and Rawson, represented the managers and Mr. Barrow, solicitor of Wolverhampton represented the Amalgamated Miner’s Association. They were instructed by Martin Cooper who represented the Shropshire men and Charles Gething the representatives of the South Staffordshire men. The jury was Noah Wilkes, foreman, R.D. Summers, T. Garbett, H. Jones, J. Bright, T. Bray, F. Ketley, W.H. Jones, R. Mainwareing, James Rushton, C. Huffadine, Thomas Keay, E. Rowley, W. Davies and John Fisher.

In evidence at the inquiry, William Morris said he saw the broken links and thought it impossible to say how long they had been broken but they could have been broken for a few days. He continued:

One outside link was work halfway through, at least so it appeared to me. I was on duty at the pit the Wednesday before the accident and saw a broken link in the chain. I stopped the engine and marked the link and we did not let the men come up until it was mended. William Wyle, the chartermaster saw the link. I marked the link but before the blacksmith came, William Hughes, the carpenter came and out in three rivets, and the men were wound.

William Wyle, chartermaster, saw the accident and with the help of William Heighway, the engineer, Richard Roberts and Robert Ward, he got another chain and spliced it on to go down to recover the men. He was aware that links had been mended the Wednesday before the accident and said:

If you will allow me to tell you all to you in my own way. It came to pass about three o’clock on the afternoon of Wednesday, I was at work on the water engine and a collier came to me and said that I must go and examine the shaft, as the men were afraid to come up. I went down and removed what was dangerous, it was some bricks and rubbish that ad worked out. I told the hooker-on to send the men up and took the engine off the pump in order that the men might come up more quickly to the top. When I came back to the banksman, he told me that there was a broken link, and he at once stopped the engine and put a mark on the link and I told him to examine the chain all the way through, which he did by the chain being slowly wound up. I left him in the act of examining the chain and went for someone to repair it. I saw William Heighway and told him what had occurred and he directed my attention to William Hughes who, he said was the man to repair the link. William Heighway, myself and William Hughes repaired the broken place by putting in new rivet links. The job was properly done. I thought the shaft was dangerous and that we should all play on Thursday and let the masters know what had taken place so none of us worked on Thursday. By Thursday night the shaft was safe and we commenced work on Friday morning, the day of the accident. I never heard a complaint about the state of the pit chain.

Mr. Wynne questioned the witness and established that the chain had not been systematically examined. The rules stated that the banksman should examine the chain and if any fault was found to report it to the engineer and it was clear that the rules had not been observed.

A collier who worked at the pit was passing at the time of the accident but not working. Richard Grant, saw the accident happen and went to the pit. He took down the chain from the roller-post and found three links had broken. Two were rusted at the fracture and one was partly broken through and appeared to have been broken before the accident. The broken links were produced to the court and John Astbury, who was with Grant gave similar evidence but said he could not swear that the links that were there were the ones from the chain.

George Jones was the next to be called. He was the field carpenter who often repaired chains with the blacksmith as apart of his duty. There was a rumour that he knew that the chain was faulty but on questioning from Mr. Wynne, Jones said that this was not true. William Hughes, also a carpenter at the colliery said that on the Wednesday he had put in three rivet links about 120 yards from the pit end of the chain. He did not examine the whole chain but stated that William Heighway did. He did not know how long the chain had been in use at the colliery.

William Heighway had been at the colliery for twenty-one years and he said he sometimes looked at the chain but he did not examine all of it on the Wednesday but said William Wylde examined it by bringing it up slowly. He had not read the rules because he could not read. There had been an accident to James Jones about two years before and Mr. Rawson had told him to inspect the chains and he had looked at them about twenty times in the last twelve months. Mr. Wynne pointed out that this was not a daily examination as required by the rules.

Samuel Lane, a fellow charter master of Wylde, was called but he had been ill and was not at the colliery so he knew nothing of the events that lead to it but he said that when the chain broke some months before it had been passed through several hands and thoroughly examined.

Sarah Yale mother of one of the deceased told the court that on the Wednesday previous to the accident their son had arrived home late. When he came he told her that the chain had broken and said that it was inspected before the men came up. Sarah told the court that her son was nervous about the chain.

The manager, Mr. Henry Lawson said that the chain had been bought in August 1868 and was put to work on 22nd, September 1868 and was manufactured at the Priestfield Chain Works. He said it was Heighway’s job to inspect the chain occasionally.

The jury considered their verdict and after about twenty minutes they returned the following verdict:

That the deceased were killed by a breaking chain. We say that sufficient caution was not taken by William Heighway, the engineer, in his examination of the chain on the Thursday preceding the accident and that, considering the other duties he has to perform, a proper person should be appointed to see that the provisions of Rule 13 should be carried out and the jury further of the opinion that the manager, Mr. Rawson should himself see that the rules are properly carried out which the evidence shows has been systematically neglected.

The Coroner addressed Heighway and Rawson:

The jury are of the opinion and indeed, the evidence fully bears out that opinion, that you are not a fit and proper person to carry out the duties entrusted to you. You have had, according to your own showing, the rules read to you, and you must have been fully aware of the importance of them. It is the wish of the jury that I should convey to you and in it I most certainly concur, their opinion that you have systematically neglected your duties, and thereby rendered necessary out assembling here upon occasion so important. And you, Mr. Rawson a very considerable amount of responsibility rests upon you. You must be aware of the full meaning of the onerous duties devolving upon this man (Heighway) and as a joint responsibility rests upon you, you should personally have seen the rules carried out. I must say, with the jury, that from the evidence it appears the rules have been grossly neglected.

Information supplied by Ian Winstanley and the Coal Mining History Resource Centre.