Ubberley Colliery
Near Hanley, North Staffordshire. 25th August 1851

In Answer the coroner, he said at the time he was down the pit on Friday, he considered the Works were in such a condition that it was safe for Hancock to deliver up the lamps, but thought it would be prudent for the men to enter the pit with one in the morning, if they did not work by them. When they went down on Monday morning all the men going to the north side had lamps, but Hancock was the only man for the south side who had a lamp. Witness did not know whether any of them had candles; they only lights taken down the pit were lamps. They had worked by candles for the last month. Replying to a juror he said he did not consider there was any danger working by candles. In answer to the coroner he said he found a lamp rather nearer the mouth of the shaft than Hancock. The doors were blown in the direction of the shaft. The coroner remarked that there was no evidence to show that Hancock had the lamp. He being the leader of the party it was reasonable to suppose that he would have it: but they could not make evidence of that. In reply to questions from Mr. Pierce, the witness said he attributed the sudden accumulation of sulphur, to the hot whether. In his opinion the airways were sufficiently large. In his reply to the coroner he said, it was the rule for the leading man to go first with the lamp every morning. There was a person appointed to keep up a regular current of air by attending the fires on Sundays. Replying to a juror, he said he could not ascertain whether the lamp had burst, or whether the explosion had been caused by a candle. The air must be very bad to explode from a lamp. On some occasions he had seen a pit clear on the morning and by dinner time all the men obliged to leave.

Ephraim Mountford, brother to George Mountford, one of the sufferers, said he went down with the second set of men on Monday morning. He went to the north side. He left the men who went to the south side 2 or 3 minutes before the explosion. He was 50 to 60 yards from them when the explosion took place. It did not injure him. He returned to the mouth of the shaft, and after the smoke had cleared away went to look for the other parties. He got amongst the smoke and Richard Edwards fetched him out. He had worked in the pit 13 or 14 years. He had been in the habit of working with candles until the last 3 or 4 weeks.

Mr. Keeling said, two lamps would not give as much light as one candle. A man could use but one lamp at a time. The coroner said 3 men who went into the south side, where the explosion took place, had lighted candles. One of the jurors said when the men had no lamps, it was usual for the butty to go first and the men to wait till he returned and told them whether they might go forward. The coroner remarked that the misfortune appeared to be, that the works were considered so safe, that the lamps had been given up on Friday; and as the works were left clear of foul on Saturday night, the men seemed to have assumed that they would be so on Monday, and had not taken the usual precautions.

William Cooper, the next witness, said he was in the north side of the pit when the explosion took place, he could not tell whether the men in the other side had candles or not. In answer to the coroner he said, about 2 months ago he repaired the south air-way. He cleared it out, and the men said it was a very good job. He should think that the air-way was large enough for the purpose for which it was wanted. In reply to a juror he said the side he worked upon was considered more dangerous than the south side. The air came to them from the south side and whatever was in the south side would come to them.

The butty in the north side was John James and he examined the works before the men went into them in a morning. They waited until he said it was safe, that was the usual mode. When there was danger the flame on the lamp assumed a spiral form. He tried the current of air from the south side as he passed and did not think it dangerous. If he thought there was danger he should have given information to the men in the south side.

Enoch Mountford said the deceased was his son. He had been acquainted with Ubberley collieries 25 years. Mr. Ridgway’s rule was for the butty to proceed the men, and examine the works before the men entering them. For several months passed they had habitually used lamps; but Hancock was so confident the works were clear, that on Friday the lamps were given up.

At this juncture a communication from the Secretary of State confirming that he had received a letter from Mr. Ridgway dated 18th August regarding the accident. After perusal of the document, and various comments, the examination of Enoch Mountford was resumed; Ralph Hancock told him on Saturday he was as glad as if anyone had given him a sovereign that the place was so free from bad air. The witness then gave some particulars respecting explosions.

He said the men at the extremities of the explosion were generally the ones that were most mutilated. What was called “sulphur” was a light air that lay on the top of common air. He should think that in this case the 2 men, who appeared to have gone first with safety lamps would, in proceeding in a stooping posture and the motions of their persons would in some degree cause the foul air to mingle with the heavier air, and that the 2 men following them, probably with a lighted candle would cause the explosion. The 3 men nearest the shaft of the pit were blown almost all to pieces, whilst the men found further in the pit were not mutilated at all, but merely scathed by the fire. He therefore inferred that the explosion had not been by the men nearest the shaft but by some of the parties further in the pit. The witness was questioned as to the direction the doors ect. were blown, and whether he could infer from that, where the explosion had taken place; but it appeared from his answers that the air would rush towards the shaft wherever the explosion might occur. In reply to a question put by Mr. Ridgway, he said he considered the ventilation sufficient and the air-ways were properly attended to. The sudden accumulation of foul air was a mystery and must ever remain so.

In another reply to a juror he said a man was paid for making fires on a Sunday. He believed there was a rule laid down by the Government as to the size of air-ways, but it was generally related to the thickness of coals. George Perrin, mine agent and bailiff to Mr. Ridgway, said he had superintended the Ubberley collieries for 5 years and a half. The plan produced was made under his direction from an actual survey. Mr. Perrin then explained, by referring to the plan, the mode of ventilation. The air-ways were two feet three inches between the centres. He considered them large enough. They were examined weekly, regularly and oftener if thought necessary. He was down the mine at breakfast time on Friday, his inquiries of Hancock were, “How is your air?” “Have you any sulphur”? Hancock said Master, we have been entirely free from it this last month and I advise you to take the lamps into the office, or otherwise I will bring them this evening. The witness told him to bring them all except his own, but to keep his own and try his place with it every morning. In the evening he brought them into the office. On Saturday at eleven o’clock, witness was in the pit again and proved the delivery of air and found it passing as usual. That was the last time he was down prior to the accident. The pit was then quite safe. Mr. Ridgway’s strict orders were to keep the air-ways clear; and there were men constantly employed for that purpose.

The air travelled 800 or 900 yards before it passed into the upcast shaft. The heat of the weather would affect the air. This being the only evidence offered, Mr. Ridgway withdrew, and the coroner asked the jury whether they thought that by adjourning the inquiry any further evidence as to the actual cause of the accident could be obtained. The Forman said the jury did not think any other evidence could be obtained by an adjournment, unless a Government Inspector could were to be requested to examine the works and report as to the ventilation.

The coroner said it would not be necessary to adjourn the inquest for that purpose. It was highly desirable that an Inspector should examine the works, and if he found the ventilation insufficient, it would be very necessary that it should be improved, and he was sure Mr. Ridgeway would be most anxious to comply with any recommendation the Inspector might make. On the other hand it would be very satisfactory to Mr. Ridgway and all parties if the inspection found them sufficient. He thought it would be well if a memorial were from the coal masters in the district, requesting that Government would cause an inspection of all mines and perhaps if the jury were to make a recommendation to that effect, Mr. Ridgway would use his influence to induce the coal masters generally to join in a memorial.

The coroner then addressed a few observations to the jury on the evidence before them, remarking that the question for them to decide would be, whether the explosion was the cause of death; whether the mine was properly worked; whether the explosion was accidental; and whether it was caused by the candles. How far Mr. Hancock or any other persons was culpable would not be known, as they were all dead.

The jury after consulting about a quarter of an hour, arrived at the conclusion that the explosion was accidental, and occasioned by the candles; and requested that the coroner would suggest to Mr. Ridgway that he should communicate to Sir George Grey the dissatisfaction that a Government Inspector had not been sent down to examine the works and further, to request that one might be sent; Also that the jury thought that a memorial from the coal masters in the district, requesting a general inspection of all mines, was very desirable.

On the desire of the jury being communicated to Mr. Ridgway, he said the recommendation of the jury gave him great pleasure as he had already decided to request that a Government Inspector might be sent to examine the works, and the desire of the jury would gave additional weight to his application. He said a memorial from the coal masters praying for a general inspection of mines could not be obtained. He was acquainted with the sentiments of many of his brother colliers, and unfortunately most of them were adverse to Government inspection as to the income tax. The inquiry terminated about 4 o’ clock.

Staffordshire Sentinel 30th Aug 1851

We understand that the Government Inspector, Mr John Dickenson of Manchester, made a careful and laborious inspection of the mine at Ubberley (the scene of the late awful calamity) on Friday last, and was well satisfied with the arrangements for the prevention of accidents, and for the general airing of the works, but suggested some improvements, which Mr. Ridgway agreed to adopt and is employed in carrying out.