TfJANSACTIONS OF SECTION C. 637 



a mile and a quarter beyond the eastern boundary fault, and botli sinkino-s 

 being confined within the exposed area of Permian, as at Sandwell. The Perry 

 sinking was abandoned after sinking and boring to a total depth of 560 yards, 

 wholly in the Permian Measures, and without any indications whatever of Coal 

 Measures. The Hamstead sinking, after about five years' hard work, ulti- 

 mately succeeded in winning the Thick Coal at a depth of 615 yards.' The 

 failure to discover Coal Measures at the great depth bored to at Perry, and the 

 inclination of the Thick Coal as proved at Hamstead, suggests the existence of a 

 large dovrathrow fault between the two sinkings. The thickness of Permian 

 passed through at Hamstead is 490 yards, and Coal Measures 125 yards, as ao-ainst 

 218 yards of Coal Measures at Sandwell, or 93 yards less. This reduced thickness 

 of Coal Measures may perhaps be accounted for by the presence of 87 yards of 

 Upper Coal Measures at Sandwell, which we do not get at Hamstead. The two 

 sinkings may be said to have proved coal for about one-and-a-quarter miles beyond 

 the previously known coalfield, and to have increased the area several square 

 miles, and it may also be said that they have to a very considerable extent proved 

 the continuity of the coalfield underneath Birmingham, rightaway to the Warwick- 

 shire coalfield, and I venture to think that the results should give encouragement 

 to searchin other parts of the coalfield for coal below the Permians. The suc- 

 cessful winnings next in importance, since the Association's last visit, are those 

 underneath the basalt of the Rowley Hills. It has been clearly demonstrated that 

 thebasalt forms only a comparatively thin capping over the Coal Measures, which 

 he in regular order beneath and are for the most part unaltered by the close con- 

 tiguity to the igneous rock, the latter apparently having been forced up throuo-h a 

 small opening or openings and spread itself over what was at that period dry Tand 

 or the bottom of a shallow sea. The Earl of Dudley and others are now raising 

 large quantities of good Thick Coal from underneath this extensive range of hills, 

 which at present form the only remaining maiden portion of the old coalfield 

 from which a supply may be expected for any length of time. It may be of 

 interest to state, as showing the disturbance to which the coalfield has been sub- 

 jected, that the Thick Coal at the Earl of Dudley's Lye Cross Pits on the Ptowley 

 Hills is relatively about 1,000 feet above the Thick Coal at Sandwell, and about 

 1,800 feet above the Thick Coal at Hamstead. The proximity of the New Red Sand- 

 stone to the present confines of the coalfield may perhaps for a time hmit future 

 sinkings to the narrow areas of exposed Permians on the east and west flanks • 

 but ultimately the New Red ground will have to be sunk through. The necessity 

 or otherwise of developing further new ground, in order to make up the reduced 

 output which must inevitably soon take place in consequence of the now rapid 

 total exhaustion of the old coalfield, is a question well worth the serious considera- 

 tion of the district. When we see that no extensions are being made to the west, 

 that the profitable limits in the south are k-nown, that the penetration of the con- 

 glomerate beds overlying the Cannock Chase or northern portion is one of o-reat 

 risk and expense (as evidenced by the signal failures of the Fair Oak Colliery and 

 the Cannock and Huntingdon Colliery), and that the parent portion of the coalfield 

 IS nearly all gone (and that the only points of future supplies will be the Sandwell 

 and Hamstead district, Cannock Chase, and the Rowley Hills), may not the time 

 have arrived for further search, especially taking into consideration the time that 

 must be occupied before any new undertaking can be fully developed and ready 

 for trading.? As showiug the capacity of production I would mention that durin<r 

 the last twenty years, 1866-1885 (or the period between this and the previous 

 visit of the Association), the gross quantity of coal raised from the coalfield was 

 191,277,309 tons, and during the same period the ironstone raised was 8,073,964 

 tons. The lowest annual output of coal during the twenty years was 8 389'.343 

 tons in 1874, and the highest was 10,550,000 tons in 1872. The output' in 1885 

 was 9,862,497 tons, and the average annual output for the twenty yenrs was 

 9,663,865 tons. It, therefore, appears that whilst the annual output of coal has 

 been maintained there has been a very remarkable falling-oft' in ironstone. I find 

 that in 1866 we raised 599,000 tons of ironstone, and that this quantity was in- 

 creased until in 1875 it reached 715,451 tons, since when it has decreased every 



