164 KEPORT — 1864. 



Statistics relative to the Bristol Coal-Field. By Handel Cossham. 

 The whole basin within the limits of the mountain limestone ridge, extending 

 from Wickwar on the north to the Mendip Hills on the south, contains about 150 

 square miles, two-thirds of which lie on the south, or Somersetshire side of 

 Bristol ; but, being so largely covered up by overlying strata of lias, new red sand- 

 stone, and even tlie oolitic limestone, it has been mucli less worked, and is not so 

 well understood as many of our other coal-fields. The author thinks that energy 

 and enterprise will develope and utilize the vast mineral resources of this district 

 much more largel}^ in the future. The northern portion of the Bristol coal-field 

 aroimd Kingswood Hill has probably been worked for 300 or 400 years ; and in 

 the district of Moorwood and Vobster, adjoining the Mendip Plills, there are 

 evidences of very ancient and extensive mining operations. The area of this coal- 

 field is thus stated : — 



Tons to work. 



Above the Pennant there are 4 seams, area 5 sq. miles 30,000,000 



In the Pennant ,, 3 „ 8 „ 10.000,000 



Kingswood series „ 15 „ 25 „ 600,000,000 



Ashton „ „ 3 „ 15 „ 100,000,000 



25 740,000,000 



It is more difficult to estimate the quantity to be worked on the Somersetshire 

 side : 1,000,000,000 tons is witliin the mark. This gives 1700 years as the probable 

 duration of the Bristol coal-field at the present rate of production. The total 

 quantity of coal now raised annually is about 1,000,000 tons — namely, 550,000 

 tons on the northern side, and 450,000 tons on the Somersetshire side. This forms 

 about one-eightieth part of the total quantity raised in the United Kingdom. There 

 is no doubt that the Bristol coal-field is capable of afibrding a much greater yield 

 than it now produces, provided more capital and skill are brought to bear upon 

 its development. 



On Military Statistics of certain Armies, especially those of the United States. 

 By E. B. Elliott, of Washington. 

 The author called attention, first, to the rates of siclmess experienced by the 

 Danish forces during the late conflict in Schleswig-Holstein ; secondly, to the rates 

 of sickness, mortality', and other casualties experienced by the United States 'S'olun- 

 teers dm'ing the first fifteen months of the existing civil war ; and, thirdly, to cer- 

 tain physiological characteristics of the United States Volunteers, and the laws 

 which govern the distribution of certain measurements. According to official data 

 kindly furnished by the distinguished chief of the medical bureau, the following 

 rates of sickness, in hospitals and quarters, obtained at the different dates specified : — 

 February 27th, 10-20 to 1000 numerical strength; March 20th, 9-75; April 23rd, 

 14-20; May 28th, 11-90; June 25th, 850; July 30th, 8-85. These rates average 

 about ten and one-half per cent, of the mean numerical strength of the amiy. The 

 sickness rate was lowest just previous to the taking of Alsen (June 29th), and high- 

 est on the 23rd of April, a lew days subsequent to the taking of Duppel, by the 

 allies (13th April). The increase in April, attending the taking of Duppel, was due 

 both to wounds received in action and to the greater prevalence of the zymotic class 

 of diseases. The average rate was nearly identical with the sickness rate of the 

 United States' forces during the nine earlier months of the existing civil war (10-4 



?er cent.), and less than the rate for the subsequent six months (16-9 per cent.), 

 he mortality of the United States' volunteers during the fifteen months, July 1861, 

 to Aiigust 1862, inclusive, as deduced fi'om careful and elaborate examination of 

 the official monthly retiu'ns of strength and casualties of regiments, conducted under 

 the auspices of the Sanitaiy Commission, was at the annual rate of somewhat over 

 seven (7-2) in eveiy 100 men — of which two (2-0) were from killed in action, and 

 five (5-2) from diseases and accidents. The rate of mortality of officers from dis- 

 ease, as in other wars, has been kss than that of the men, but from wounds recei\ed 

 in action much greater. The mortality from wounds, both of officers and men, has 

 in general been considerably less than that fi'om disease, although the mortality of 



