147 
‘‘ less fiery than many,” and its ventilation ‘‘ most admira- 
ble,” it is evident that it would have been worked, and 
worked in the same general manner, had the safety lamp 
been unknown. At E-isca, where the general use of gun- 
powder would have seemed to render the precaution of 
lamps almost vain, only about one-third of the lights were 
lamps. We cannot, therefore, suppose the use of these 
to have caused any neglect in other respects. And at the 
Oaks, where candles were ‘‘ chiefly” used, and at Jarrow Low 
Seam, Oldbury, Coppull, and Darley, where candles alone 
were employed by the hewers, and lamps confined to the 
doggy or fireman, for purposes of inspection merely, no 
dependence on the safety lamp can have influenced either 
the opening of the mines, their modes of working or of 
ventilation, or the conduct of the workmen. If many 
precautions formerly considered requisite” have really been 
abandoned since the discovery of the lamp, it confirms what 
I am endeavouring to impress upon you, that mischief will 
attend every undue dependence on any one means of safety. 
The real question is, then, Is wire gauze any protec- 
tion ?” ‘‘ Is the lamp safer than a candle ?” On these 
heads I have no doubt. The nature of the case, abundant 
observation, the testimony of scientific men, even that of 
pitmen, (who, however, prefer the greater light of candles,) 
all concur to show that, to a certain extent, wire gauze is 
a protection, and the lamp safer than a candle. Every 
time that the cylinder is filled with flame, that flame would 
extend, and an explosion follow, but for the wires. Sir 
Henry De la Beche and Dr. Playfair three times expressed 
their opinion that “ much additional security is obtained by 
the proper use of the original Davy, or its improvements.*” 
That they “ cause security in all cases where proper care 
is employed, though they may not be absolutely safe under 
* Report, 1847, p. 8, 
