wae. ? 
“al > 
= 
Feb. 6, 1873] 
SPE ON ee, He 
SE oN tea 
. 
NATURE 
a 
4 ne 2 
Coy st 
E 7 
271 
doubled ; in 36 years it would be quadrupled ; and in 54 years 
it would be eight times greater than at present. It is clear, 
therefore, that our consumption has been increasing at a rate 
which could not possibly Jast. If nothing else was destined to 
arrest it, a failure of mining labour was inevitably approaching 
to have that effect ; but a few years would probably have yet 
elapsed before the number of hands becamé inadequate to meet 
the required demand, had not the miners precipitated the event 
by restricting the hours of work. The hours of mining labour 
in this district 25 years ago were 9 per day. Ata subsequent date 
they were reduced to 8, then to 7, and finally to 6. Hitherto, 
the men have worked 11 days a fortnight, but it seems doubtful 
whether more than 10 can now be worked consistently with the 
very proper limitations of the recent Coal Mines’ Act, in regard 
to the labour of the boys. The full hours per fortnight will, 
therefore, at the most, be 66, or 33 hours per week of labour 
at the face of the coal; but as it is only the steadiest men that 
work full time, the average time will, of course, be considerably 
below that limit. 
Tam not aware to what extent reduction of time has been 
carried in other parts of England ; but we hear of the same 
policy of restriction, either of time or output, or of both, being 
put in practice in all the important coal districts. I do not 
_ suppose that the average output, per man, has fallen off propor- 
tionately to the reduction of hours. The men work hard, even 
harder than formerly, while at their post, but it is impossible that 
so great a reduction of working time can have taken place with- 
out so lessening the output, per head, as to neutralise in a great 
degree the increase of production due to the numerical growth of 
the mining population. Under these two conditions of increasing 
consumption and restricted labour, we have reached a point at 
which the demand has overtaken the supply. As yet, the 
deficiency cannot be great, for it has only very recently become 
apparent. Consumption does not advance by jumps; and we 
may assume that if a progressive increase of four or five per cent. 
per annum could have been maintained in the production of coal, 
a balance would still have existed between supply and demand. 
Though production has ceased to keep up with demand, it has 
not, so far as we can judge, actually receded, and’ it would 
therefore appear that a small addition to the present supply 
would restore the equilibrium. But small as the deficiency 
must be, it is sufficient to create a sense of scarcity, and as a 
consequence, to send up coals to a famine pitch. 
The situation is a grave one, and the public has not yet fully 
realised how very grave itis. Taking the present consumption 
at 110 millions of tons (evclusive of exportation) and estimating 
the extra price to consumers at 8s. a ton over all, the annual loss to 
the community from the additional cost of fuel, amounts to 44 
millions sterling, Had a Government tax of 44 millions been 
levied upon coal, in addition to existing taxation, the effect 
would have been regarded as utterly ruinous, not only in regard 
to its prodigious amount, but on account of its repressive effect 
upon every kind of production. Yet it is a fact that we are now 
paying the equivalent of such a tax, with this unfavourable 
difference, that the money does not go into the coffers of the 
nation. Whether it chiefly goes to coal-owners or coal-miners is 
a question which I need not discuss, but I may observe that the 
restrictive action of the men has benefitted their employers as well 
as themselves, and that the public are the only sufferers. Coal- 
owners have long been aware that limitation of quantity was the 
only effectual mode of raising price, but they have never been 
able, by their own action, to maintain a restricted production. 
At last their workmen have done it for them, and we see the 
result. 
Whether the trade of the country will bear up against the 
heavy burden of dear coal, combined as it is with dearness of 
other products, arising from similar causes in other industries, 
is a question on which I shall not attempt to prophesy. It 
will be more to the purpose to consider what can be done to 
mitigate the evils under which the nationis now labouring in 
regard to the price of coal. It is vain to appeal for relief either 
to coal-owners or coal-workers. Self-interest is the ruling 
principle of trade, and it is visionary to expect that men will 
sell either labour or the produce of labour for less than the 
market price. However generous a man may be, he will not 
exhibit his generosity by selling an article below its value. 
Speaking then, as one of the public and not as a coal-owner, I 
say, we must strive to economise the use of coal ; speaking as 
president of an institution of mining and mechanical engineers, 
I say, we must endeavour to make up for the deficiency of 
human labour by a more extended use of machine labour. The* 
waste of coal, both in domestic and manufacturing use is a 
threadbare subject, but there never was a time when its con- 
sideration was of so much importance as at present. The small 
deficiency of supply which is now so violently stimulating the 
market would be just as effectually expunged by economisinz 
consumption as by increasing production. If, on the one hand, 
the mining population could easily, by a few hours’ addition to 
their weekly labour, restore the equilibrium between supply ard 
demand, so on the other hand consumers taken as a body, coukl 
do the same thing, by discontinuing in a small degree those 
reckless habits of wasting coal to which they obstinately adhere. 
The consumption of coal takes place under three great 
divisions, each absorbing about one-third of the whole produce :— 
(1) domestic consumption ; (2) steam-engine consumption ; and 
(3) iron making and other manufacturing processes. In the first 
two divisions the waste is simply shameful ; in the third it is not 
so great, but still considerable, though in some processes, and 
especially in the smelting of iron, economy of fuel has been so 
diligently pursued that there remains but little apparent scope 
for further saving. I shall not dwell on the waste of coal in 
domestic consumption, as it is scarcely a subject for engineers ; 
but the circumstances of the times are such as to forbid my 
passing it unnoticed. It is impossible to conceive any system cf 
heating a dwelling more wasteful than that of sinking the fire- 
place into a wall directly beneath the chimney which carries off 
the products of combustion. Nothing can be clearer than the 
advantage to be gained by merely advancing the fire-place a little 
into the room, and constructing it with proper heating surfaces, 
asin the ‘‘Gill-stove,” and many other stoves acting on the 
same principle. There is no occasion to shut out the fire from 
view. Neither is there any difficulty about ventilation, since 
fresh air can easily be introduced from the exterior by a pipe 
delivering its supply against the heated plates, so as to temper 
the air before it enters the room, By this simple and unob- 
jectionable departure from the conventional fire-place, the quan- 
tity of coal required to produce a given heating effect might 
easily be reduced to one-half, and still greater economy would 
be effected by the use of hot-water apparatus, which, however, 
has the objection of being too costly in first outlay to aamit 
of very general application. For cooking purposes also, the 
consumption of coal is in most houses equally extravagant, and 
I may add, equally inexcusable, since the means of prevention 
are attainable by the adoption of known methods and appliances 
for concentrating the heat upon the work to be done. 
A more appropriate subject for the consideration of this insti- 
tution is the wasteful employment of coal for steam power. The 
steam engine is, at best, a very imperfect machine for utilising 
the mechanical power of heat, for in no case do we realise more 
than about one-tenth of the theoretical effect of the fuel. But 
the difference in economy between our best steam engines and 
our worst is enormous, and unfortunately by far the most nume- 
rous class belong to the category of the worst. In the best kind 
of engines, the consumption of coal per horse-power is rather 
less than 2Ibs., but there are thousands of steam engines in 
daily use which burn from 12 to 14]1bs, per horse-power. This 
excessive wastefulness arises from defects, both in the mode of 
raising the steam and in the mode of applyingit. Theoretically, 
1 lb. of coal is capable of evaporating 13 lbs. of water, but the 
conclusion arrived at on this subject by the late Royal Commis- 
sion on the duration of coal was, that in practice 1 1b. of ordinary 
coal did not, on an average, evaporate more than 4 lbs. of water. 
The causes of this deficient result are perfectly understood, and, 
therefore, cannot be excused by ignorance. They are—insuffi- 
cient boiler surface to absorb the heat, insufficient steam space 
to allow of a complete separation of the steam from the water, 
unclothed boilers, and imperfect combustion of the fuel, arising 
from badly constructed furnaces and from bad firing. The 
defects in the mode of applying the steam, or in other 
words, the defects which belong to the engine, in contra- 
distinction to the boiler, are equally well known and equally 
remediable. The steam—to begin with—should be taken 
from the boiler at a much higher pressure than is usual. It 
should be admitted upon the piston at the full boiler pres- 
sure, and allowed to expand in the cylinder until its power 
is practically exhausted. The cut-off valves should be close to 
the end of the cylinders, as in the Corliss arrangement, so as to 
leave the smallest possible amount of space between the valve 
and the piston when commencing its stroke. Finally, the cylin- 
der should be steam jacketed to prevent its cooling during the 
