fencing a shaft 11 feet from the ground was to turn it truly, polish it brightly, and leave it open, so that its operation might be seen, and any attempt to tamper with straps and pulleys at once discovered."—Oldham Chronicle, February 10th, 1855.
Mr. Fothergill, consulting engineer, whose experience in the working of machinery extends over France and Switzerland, as well as the United Kingdom, gave evidence on the same occasion, precisely to the effect of Mr. Fairbairn's. Thus, if the millowners were sanctioned by the Secretary of State in their understanding of the circular, and by engineers of high repute in their opinion of the mischief of casing their shafts, it is no wonder that their remonstrances were strong. As for Mr. Horner, he retreated, for the moment, on the allegation that the millowners had misunderstood the circular, though we find him, in the next autumn, harping upon the benefits of casings, ignoring the danger of the casings bringing down the whole structure, at the time of an accident, on the heads of the workers, and declaring that "if shafts less than seven feet from the floor can thus be securely fenced by iron or wood casings, those more than seven feet can surely also be guarded."—(Report, October, 1854.) Thus, in January of that year, Mr. Horner was understood by everybody to insist on these casings; in March he declared that he by no means intended to prescribe casings rather than other means of security; in October, he remonstrates in his Report against the absence of casings; and, finally, in the next spring, he complains bitterly of being misrepresented as indicating casings rather than any other methods the millowners may prefer. So much for the looseness of Mr. Horner's representations in the first instance.
As for Lord Palmerston, his active mind went to work at once to teach the manufacturers how to manage their business. We must trouble our readers to bear with a little more detail about the mill-machinery; and then we shall get on to more interesting matter.
