I first encountered the term Mining Agent when researching a major
strike at the Moonta and Wallaroo copper mines in South Australia in
1864. The mines were run along Cornish lines, with each mine having
a Chief Captain (who we would call something like General Manager in
Charge of Mining today) and a number of subsidiary Captains, whose
duties ranged from underground manager down to deputy or leading
hand. Each mine also had a local officer called a Superintendent,
who was more like the Company Secretary or Business Manager. One
factor contributing to the strike was that it was not always clear
which of the two senior officers was responsible for bargaining with
the workforce and communicating with the Board of Directors in Adelaide.
When the strike began, the miners wrote to the Directors, presenting
their grievances against the "Mining Agents", by whom they meant the
two Chief Captains. They continued to use the expression for the
duration of the strike, which lasted several months. I was puzzled
by the term, as it had never been used on paper before the strike,
but I concluded that the miners were using the word "Agent" in its
legal sense of a servant who is empowered to enter into a contract
which is binding on the master. The strikers were making the point
that the actions of the Chief Captains were damaging the Directors'
interests.
The eventual outcome was the resignation or dismissal of the two
Chief Captains, a return to work, and the appointment of a new
manager with the title "Chief Captain and Superintendent", resolving
the ambiguity. The word Agent disappeared again. Twenty-five years
later when the companies amalgamated, the title was modernised to
"General Manager".
My impression is that the nineteenth century use of the term Mining
Agent overlapped with that of captain or manager, and implied that
the officer had a specific legal power and responsibility to
represent the shareholders' interests in the operation of the mine.
Peter Bell
On 09/06/2008, at 7:02 PM, 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
|