Providence Ironworks (Cradley Heath)

Joseph Penn and Co.

1906 'Formerly owned by John Penn, engineer, machinist, and iron and brass founder, the works are now run by the associated firms of Messrs Joseph Penn and Co and Messrs Penn Bros., the former of whom have the iron works, noted for their chain iron and light iron work, whilst the latter are responsible for general engineering.'

1953 George Watkins visited the works in 1953 and photographed the old beam engine, used to drive the roll turning lathe and to work a pump. The engine was of the 'A-frame' type, of very slender proportions. He recorded that it had hard usage, and that 'It was typical of Black Country engineering, in which plant was kept going somehow whatever condition it was in, and only the roughest repairing methods were used.'

1906 Boiler Explosion

OPENING of THE INQUEST. On Thursday morning, Mr. G. C. Lewis (coroner) opened the inquest upon the body of John Penn, at the British Oak Inn, Garratt's Lane, Old Hill. Mr. R. Fellows was foreman of the jury, and Mr. Thomas Penn represented the firm. At the outset the Coroner intimated that he only proposed to take sufficient evidence of identification, and then to adjourn the inquiry until a suitable date. Is was necessary that the Factory Inspector should be present, and it was also desirable that fullest inquiry should be made into the cause of the disaster.
Evidence of identification was then given by Clara Alice Penn, the widow.— In reply to the Coroner, she said the only thing deceased had spoken to her about the boiler was that it should have been repaired at Whitsuntide, but that it was deferred until Bank Holiday.
This was the whole of the evidence read, and the inquiry was then adjourned until July 19th.'

1906 'THE CRADLEY BOILER EXPLOSION. ADJOURNED ENQUIRY AT OLD HILL CORONER'S EXPLANATION.

'To-day Mr. G. C. Lewis (Coroner) resumed the adjourned enquiry at the British Oak Inn, Garratt’s Lane, Old Hill, respecting the death of John Penn (45), puddler, of Sheffield Street, Quarry Bank, who was killed in the boiler explosion which occurred at the Providence Ironworks, Cradley Heath, the 4th inst. Mr. Wickham King appeared on behalf of Messrs. Penn Brothers, the owners of the works; and Mr. Higgs, of Brierley Hill, represented the relatives of the deceased man. Mr. R. H. Garvie, Chief Inspector of Factories, was also present.

'The Coroner remarked that before proceeding with the enquiry he wished to refer to the remarks of the Dudley inquest as to the desirability of holding a joint enquiry, and it was said that he (Mr. Lewis) would not adopt the suggestion which was made to that effect. He did not adopt that suggestion for the simple reason that he had no power to do so. They were not there to enquire into the cause of the boiler explosion, but simply to enquire into the cause of a particular man's death. The other victim of the explosion, John Beddard, did not die within the district over which he had jurisdiction, and consequently the report of his death, according to the Coroners Act must be made by the Coroner for the Dudley district. He thought it desirable make that explanation because some people after reading the reports in the papers might think that he had been a little careless and had given more trouble than was necessary. .....

'THE EVIDENCE. David Shaw, turner, employed at the Providence Works as a turner, stated that he believed deceased was sitting close to the boiler when it exploded. Witness caused some amusement by saying that he looked after himself first, and then as soon as he found that he himself was safe and the steam had cleared he went in search of deceased. He found Penn near the pig-iron with portion his head blown away and amongst the dobris. He was fifteen or twenty yards away from where the boiler had been. Penn was dead.

'Mr. Joseph Penn, one of the owners of the works, gave evidence as to the boiler being insured and it having been examined by an inspector on behalf of the insurance company on February 28th. The report did not point out that anything was required to be done to the boiler in the way of repairs.

'The report was handed in, and the Coroner read an extract from it which stated that there were several edge fractures at the seams in which stop rivets had been put, and which appeared light. The defects mentioned were not of material importance, and no repairs were required. He (witness) had also examined the boiler regularly with a view to ensure its safety.

'Mr. Fellows (foreman) said he was familiar with boilers, and had never seen a cleaner report. He had never noticed anything in the condition of the boiler which led him to think that the boiler required attention. He did not agree with the statement that the plate of the boiler was 3/16 inch thick. He did not think for a moment that it was so thin that.

'In reply to a juror, witness stated that the firm had no intention of having the boiler repaired during the next holiday. There was no foundation for the statement.

'At this point tbe Coroner remarked that he proposed to leave the matter there unless the jury desired other witnesses called. The jury held a private consultation, and upon returning the foreman said they would like Edward Baynham, the engine driver at the works, called. This witness stated that he examined the floats of the boiler three hours before the explosion and found them all right. There was sufficient water in the boiler.

'A juryman said that hardly seemed feasible. He never knew a boiler explode when it was well supplied with water.

'Mr. Wickham King said he had read a great deal about boiler explosions since that case, and he could assure the juror that there were a hundred different ways by which a boiler could explode. One of the causes which least frequently occurred was the want of water. Tests had been made, and he had persons there who had made them, and a boiler had been known been brought up to white heat without any water and had not gone up.

'The Juror replied that persons on the jury had experienced the same thing, but if they put water in it would not stand there long.

'The Coroner said they had better not cross-examine Mr. King. ]

'The jury held another short consultation, and the Foreman intimated that they returned a verdict of "Accidental death" without adding any rider.'

Such an unsatisfactory outcome might have been regarded as acceptable in earlier times, but fortunately the safety of employees was treated more seriously in the 20th century. The Board of Trade conducted a thorough formal inquiry.

From a newspaper report of 1 November :-

' CRADLEY BOILER EXPLOSION. THE BOARD OF TRADE ENQUIRY.

'Messrs. A. Hudson and J. H. Hull, tha Commissioners appointed by the Board of Trade, continued their enquiry at the Town Hall, Stourbridge, today, into the circumstances of the boiler explosion at the Providence Ironworks, Cradley Heath, which took place on July 4th, and resulted in the death of two persons and injury to fourteen others.

'The first witness this morning was Mr. W. Kircaldy, of the Testing and Experimental Works, Southwark, who deposed to making an examination of a piece of iron which was cut out of the longitudinal plate at the bottom of the boiler. The result was that he found that the strength of the metal across the grain was 9.3 tons less than with the grain. This difference was abnormal, the usual difference being about three tons, though plates could made giving equal strength in both directions. Cross-examined by Mr. King, behalf of Penn Brothers, witness said that had his tests been applied fourteen years ago, the date of the construction of the boiler, the figures might possibly have come out a little more favourably. The strength of the plate lengthways was better than it need be, but crossways it was not up to the mark. Such differences he found would be accidental and abnormal, probably caused by bad piling by the workman.

'The President: It rather goes to show that a purchaser from a responsible firm may accidentally get bad plate, and that you can't rely on any without some form testing? — Witness: It rather points that way. It is a fair way of looking at it that this was an accidental plate. The President suggested that a firm having a reputation for boiler plates might put all their skill to produce a plate with abnormal longitudinal strength. — Seeing that the usual way of making boilers was in bands, witness did not think so. He thought boilerplate makers would make their plates nearly equal strength in both directions, so that they be put on both ways.

' THE CAUSE OF THE EXPLOSION.

'Mr. Carlton, Board of Trade engineer, put in a long report descriptive of his deductions from examination of the exploded boiler. One end of the boiler, he said, after destroying a chimney stack, was projected, wicket-like, a distance of 250 yards over several houses into a gentleman’s garden. At the time of the explosion he put the probable steam pressure at from 50 lb. to 55 lb.

'Mr. Vaux: To what do you attribute the explosion?

'Witness: To the deterioration of the longitudinal plate at the bottom of the boiler, and to corrosion inside and cracks outside adjacent to the plate. He found cracks of old standing on the plates at the bottom of the boiler. Two them must have been nearly through at the time of the explosion. The difference between the transverse and lengthwise strength of the longitudinal plate undoubtedly hastened the explosion. He had never experienced such differences as those spoken of by Mr. Carlton. He thought Penn was justified in adopting the longitudinal plate to overcome the difficulties he spoke of, but very close attention should have been paid any cracks or corrosion which might occur along the seams of such a plate.

'Witness was cross-examined by Mr. Cave with a view to suggesting that the cause of the explosion was seam rip. He said he had the possibility of such a csse in his mind when he made his examination, but found no evidence of a seam rip. Assuming a seam rip to be present round the fourth seam, he admitted it would not set a more dangerous state of things than existed in connection with the bottom plate, but denied there was such a rip.

By Mr. King: If the iron plate had been of better quality the explosion would not have occurred at the time it did. The cracks in the plates could not have been discovered by anyone but an expert.'

The Board of Trade Inquiry continued, one newspaper devoting six columns to the next session , and other devoted a full page to the final proceedings

1906 SEQUEL TO A BOILER EXPLOSION
HEAVY PENALTIES.
The Board of Trade inquiry into the boiler explosion at Providence Ironworks, Cradley Health, Staffordshire, terminated at Stourbridge on Wednesday. The explosion occurred on July 4th, killing two men and injuring fourteen others. The Commisioners found the accident could have been prevented, and there had been gross negligence. Messrs Mills and Connor, two officials of the Scottish Boiler Insurance Company, which was supposed to examine the firm's boilers regularly, were found to have signed incorrect information when issuing the Factory Act certificates. The insurance company was fined £50, Mr Mills £120, Mr Connor £20 and the owners of the works £50.'

See Also

Loading...