A general question for the list, related to this string -
Does 'Agent' in the coal mining context equate to the Agents employed on metalliferous mines in SW England. They sound similar. Is the 'Viewer' therefore equivalent to the Captain?
Robert Waterhouse> Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 14:03:53 +0100> From: [log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Mine Agents> To: [log in to unmask]> > I will be interested to see other replies to this query. In the > meantime, I can only give what seems to me to have been the situation > in the Durham coalfield.> > I think the Agent, in Durham, was the top man. He was the owner's > representative responsible for all the collieries owned. So his > importance presumably depended on the no. of collieries owned by that > person or partnership or company. Perhaps especially early in the 19th > century, he may, indeed, have been as much a land agent as a colliery > engineer. The Bishop of Durham's Agent, for instance, may have been > involved with the lease of farms and wayleaves as well as mineral > royalties.> > I take the Viewer to have been a rank below the Agent, essentially the > manager of a single colliery or group of collieries. Some Census > entries show Viewers as being no older than their early 20s - > especially before the NE Institute of Mining Engineers was founded (in > 1852) and (later) colliery managers' certificates were introduced.> > But then there were some very notable mining engineers who were Agents > but also Viewers... and indeed owners. Nicholas Wood, for instance, > the first president of the NEIMME, was Viewer of Killingworth > colliery, while also being Lord Ravensworth's general manager or Agent > in respect of his other collieries... and at the same time owned > interests in a number of collieries in his own right. To confuse > things a bit more, he left Killingworth, in 1844, and moved to Hetton, > as “Agent” of the Hetton Coal Co., in which he had been a partner > since 1822...> > By the end of the 19th century, I think the term "Viewer" was much > less common and that by then the Agent was clearly the engineer > responsible for a company's collieries, while the manager was usually > in charge of just one. (Beneath him there may been one or more under- > managers and beneath them the overmen - with deputy overmen, or > deputies, coming next... Except that you also had a colliery > engineer, for instance, who seems to me to have been as important as > the under-manager. I mention these last points because "overman", > also, seems to me to have been a rather ambiguous term earlier on, > perhaps even equating to a colliery manager in some cases. Perhaps > that, too, depended on the size of the enterprise.)> > I'm sorry if this confuses more than it clarifies! In answer to > Keith's query, though, I am pretty sure that Agents were senior to > Viewers and that the latter could be quite young, early in the 19th > century - in the Durham coalfield, at least. The age, qualification > or experience required to be an Agent may have depended on the size of > the company, or the size of the estate of the land owner.> > Mike> > -----------------------------------------------------------> I search the web and raise money for the Bowburn Banner Group with > Everyclick.> Join me: http://www.everyclick.com/msyer> -----------------------------------------------------------> > > > On 9 Jun 2008, at 10:32, Keith Jackson wrote:> > > Several of my ancestors have proved to be Mine Agents in various > > coalfields and I understand that this term effectively relates to > > the modern post of mine manager, though I don't know whether that > > would have meant what we'd currently think of as a manager or would > > also have applied to posts equivalent to under-managers. I would not > > have thought it would have applied to deputies and over-men because > > the term agent suggests he would have been an owners' representative > > and there would have been only one per mine or perhaps one per shift > > necessary. I don't know when mine management became a statutory > > occupation but I'd guess in the early- to mid-19th century that > > there would neither a national qualification nor national or local > > registration of officials. On that basis, would I be right in > > assuming that Mine Agents would be appointed entirely on the basis > > of experience and aptitude?> >> > Although there would have been many small pits in this period, each > > with at least one agent, I can't imagine that it would have been all > > that easy for a miner to rise to agent, even so, and that there > > would have been a fair number of dead men's boots to be filled on > > the way up. Is it be reasonable to assume that it would be unusual > > for anyone to become an agent before their mid-thirties at the very > > earliest and to be more likely not to happen until they were into > > their forties?> >> > Although I'm ex-NCB, I worked at the MRDE/TSRE near Burton on Trent > > so my knowledge of mine management is limited as I was never pit- > > based.> >> > Keith
_________________________________________________________________
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000007ukm/direct/01/
|