28 
Mr. Inspector Grainger (Sandhurst) reports the results of his tests 
follows : — 
I tested altogether nine different cages:— 
1. Webb's. — Tested this cage with a full truck in, and without any load. Ihe tests were "very 
satisfactory, the cage not dropping more than 1 inch. It has been in use about four years. 
2. Osborne and Mitchell's. — Tested empty cage, and also with full truck in. lest good, cage not 
dropping more than half inch. In use five years. ... 
3. Turnbull's. —Stood test well, with load in and without, not dropping more than 2 inches, just 
sufficient to let eccentrics act. In use four years. 
4. Jackson and Middletons. —Test good, with empty and full truck in, only dropped half inch. Cage* 
in use five years. 
5. Bowman's . —Gave this cage a severe test, but it stood it well, with full truck in and without. 
Could not discern how little it dropped. In use about five years. 
6. Hocking's. —This cage would not stand the test. I was disappointed in it, as I considered it onQ 
of the best in use. Mr. Hocking explained that it was not properly made. It was not made by him. 
7. Kay's. —This cage stood test well, with and without full truck in, only dropping about half inch. 
Working about three years. 
8. Seymour's. —I gave this cage severe tests with a full truck on and without it, and I could not 
discern how little it dropped. The tests were most satisfactory. In use about four years. 
9. Kennedy's. — This cage also stood a good test, with a full truck on and without it. Ihe grippers 
acted at once. In use about two years. 
I may add, all the cages, with the exception of Ilocking’s, stood the tests well, and were highly 
satisfactory. If I were asked which one of all I have tested I prefer, I would select Seymour’s from iny 
general knowledge of all of them, and from the fact that its principle is the least complicated. 
Mr. Inspector W. G. Coucliman (Dunollv) reports as follows :— 
I have practically tested the working of the various safety cages in use in my district, with the 
following results :— 
Haddock's Patent .—The safety appliances attached to this cage consist of strong iron grippers 
(worked with a spring), which catch the sides of the skids fixed in the shaft. When sufficient weight is of? 
to allow the spring to act they hold very well, but should the rope break near the drum, or the drum revolve 
on the shaft of the winding gear, leaving sufficient strain to keep the spring expanded, the grippers cannot 
act, and the cage would descend to the bottom of the shaft. 
The Queen’s Birthday Company, Dunollv, have these cages working, but they have an additional 
safety appliance of the manager’s invention attached, consisting of a wedge which is applied with a lever, 
so that when men are in the cage it is the duty of one of them to keep his hand on the levers and, in case of 
accident, apply it to stop the downward progress of the cage, when the grippers act immediately. 
Allan's Patent .—The safety appliances on this cage also consist of strong iron grippers worked with 
a spring. They take hold of the sides of the skids which are fixed in the shaft ; a lever is also attached to 
the cage, by which means, when men are in it, they can stop its descent at any time, and it works very 
well; but this, as with the others I have seen, will not. work if there should be no person to apply the lever 
when there is sufficient weight behind the pulleys to keep the spring expanded. 
Seymour s Patent .—The safety appliances to this cage consist of two strong iron arms (worked with a 
spring), which press the skids outward against the sides of the shaft. It also has a lever that can he applied 
when men are in the cage, and works very well; hut there is the same objection to this as the others, namely, 
the grippers will not act if there is sufficient weight, in the.shape of a tail rope behind the pulleys to keep 
the spring expanded. 
Penniment's Cage .—The cage now in use by the Mercantile Company, Carp Diggings, was manu¬ 
factured by Mr. J. Pennimcnt, of Chilteru. The safety appliances consist of strong chisel-pointed grippers, 
which catch the sides of the skids in the shaft. These grippers are worked with a spring, and act very 
well, stopping the descent of the cage immediately, when they take hold; but the same objection applies as 
to the others. 
Mr. Inspector Fennelly (Ivilmore) reports :— 
There are four safety cages in my district, being one at each of the following mines, viz.:—The 
Langridge, Empress of India, Doyle’s, and Crown. 
On the 30th December I visited the aforesaid mines, but could not examine the cages, as work was 
suspended for the holidays. 
On the loth instant I made another visit, with the following results :— 
The Empress was idle, hut the manager stated he would resume work in a few days, and he would 
communicate with me, so that I could arrange to test his cage. 
The safety cage at the Langridge is not used. 
The trials of the cages at the Doyle’s and Crown mines were disappointing. The first-named 
company use Seymour’s cage, and that used by the latter is, I believe, Macaw’s. Both are fitted with 
Middleton’s hooks. 
I caused each cage to ho dropped Jive times, and each caught only once, thereby showing that, in 
their present condition, the safety appliances of these companies are useless. 
I am confident that some time ago both cages gripped satisfactorily, and I attribute their present 
failure to the shrinkage of the timber in the shafts, which has evidently got out of the neat gauge required 
for the gripping appliances, and I have therefore directed the managers to make such adjustments as will 
ensure their safe working in future. I intend to make another inspection at an early date. It is self-evident, 
owing to the rough wear and tear to which cages arc subjected during work, that the eiliciency of the best 
