<<< BACK to previous page

England - Shale Oil


    Works & Mines








A Recognised Collection of National Importance

Home > Beyond Scotland > Shale Oil in England > Resources Index > Young v. Fernie

Young & others v. Fernie & others

Selected extracts relating to oil operations in Dorset.

Young v. Fernie was the last, the longest, and the most renowned of a series of court actions pursued by James Young in defence of his patent. Action was taken against Ebenezer Waugh Fernie and partners, who operated a substantial coal oil business in Flintshire. Following almost two months of evidence, "The Great Paraffine Case" of 1864 found in favour of Young and awarded him substantial damages.

As in earlier cases, the defence sought to challenge the validity of Young's patent by proving that his process was already established practice prior to the granting of his patent in 1851. It was accepted that Young's patent might cover the production of oil from coal, but did not apply to other minerals such as shale. The evidence given in court established that oil production in Dorset pre-dated Young's patent, and legal argument focussed on whether the minerals used for this oil production could be classed a coal, or as a shale.



(Before Vice-Chancellor STUART.)


MONDAY 29th February 1864


I understand that in Scotland it was found that Young was the inventor, that the invention was new, and that the specification was sufficient,



Yes. In 1861 it was found that a firm of the name of Miller and Co., who carried on business at Aberdeen and Glasgow, were infringing the patent. Proceedings were taken against them; they paid £5,000, and took a licence from Mr. Young. Some other proceedings were taken about the same time against a company at Wareham, known as Messrs. Humphrey and Co. After these proceedings were commenced, it was found that the defendants had mortgaged their plant and their works; the mortgagees fore closed; they became bankrupt, and their works closed altogether. The plaintiff therefore, did not proceed any further.


FRIDAY 4th March 1864

Evidence of JAMES YOUNG:

…… I never heard of the Wareham Company before June 1850. I have some idea of an offensive oil being sent us to purify. I can not say whether it was Dr. Angus Smith who sent us that. I do not recollect what was done with it. I got no paraffin out of it; nor did my partner, that I am aware of. A person of the name of Clift gave evidence in the Clydesdale suit about dealings with the Wareham people. Undoubtedly my commercial success has been attributable to the quantity of paraffin-oil and paraffin produced from the coal. Boghead coal gives large quantities of those. Other coals would give results nearly equal.

JAMES YOUNG, cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL:

….. Before the patent was taken out, I did not communicate with a company called the Shale Oil Company at Wareham. I know Dr. Angus Smith very well. I do not remember receiving from Dr. Smith a sample of the Wareham Company's product. The first thing that I recollect about the Wareham Company is Mr. Binney sending me from Manchester a printed bill of sale of the works. I cannot tell the date of that.


WEDNESDAY 9th March 1864


….. But he submitted that, whether his honour looked to the point of novelty or to the point of infringement, the case of the defendants would be clearly established. He had forgotten to state that, in addition to the working on coal in Wales, there was an extensive and profitable working at Wareham, both from shale and coal, established in 1849, and in operation for manufacturing purposes before the date of Mr. Young's patent.


Do you say coal was ever worked?


So I am informed.


That is, for the production of crude oil?


Yes, and paraffin. The plaintiff said that in 1861 he received information of the proceedings of the Wareham Oil Company, and threatened them with a bill for an injunction; but immediately afterwards the company became bankrupt, and it was not therefore worth while to proceed.


Was it the Bituminous Shale Company?


It was originally.


That company was wound up in this court.


But they have successors. The announcement in the original prospectus covers the whole ground of the commercial results aimed at by Mr. Young, and a considerable business has been continually done at Wareham.


MONDAY, 18th April 1864

Mr. Richard Spyer, examined by Mr. D. BRUCE:

I am a clerk in the office of the registrar of Joint-stock companies. I have here all the papers connected with the Bituminous Shale company, and I produce the deed of association.


I have an abstract of it. I find these words- "To extract, distil, manufacture, and produce therefrom certain oils, pitch, and gaseous, unctuous, carbonaceous and other products, and to sell and dispose of the same."

Cross-examined by Mr. BOVILL:

The company was dissolved by an order of his honour.

Mr William Eames Heathfield, examined by Mr. CHANCE:

I was consulting chemist to the Bituminous Shale Company. I became so about May, 1850. The works were carried on at Wareham, in Dorset shire. I went down to the works previous to my engagement as consulting chemist. I had the products sent up to my laboratory in London in 1850, and I made experiments upon them. I had a dense product sent up to me which was called crude oil. The process carried on at Wareham was that of distilling Kimmeridge coal in iron retorts in the nature of gas-retorts, and obtaining the product. We also made use of Kimmeridge shale. I produce a specimen which I obtained a the pit about 3 weeks ago; it is an average specimen.

There were two descriptions of retorts when I went to Wareham. One was vertical, capable of holding nearly a ton of coal and shale mixed. The other was in the nature of gas-retorts; 2 benches of 5 retorts each for burning the coal and producing the results. When I went to the works the process was going on with those 10 retorts. They were heated by means of a naked fire, the retorts being shielded at the bottom by brickwork so as to cause as little heat as possible to come into contact with the retorts themselves. The horizontal bench was altered immediately upon my arrival, at my suggestion. Others were substituted, capable of giving a more equable and moderate heat. I do not know at what temperature they were being worked when I went there; it was what I should call a visible red heat. The object was to get as low a red heat as possible, consistently with the reduction of the oil. The 10 retorts ware replaced by 120 imbedded in brickwork. When I went to Wareham there were about a dozen men at work there. The new retorts were horizontal, and had a condensing apparatus at the extreme end. They were 9 feet in length, capable of holding l cwt. of coal each. The time of this distillation varied from 6 to 8 hours. Our first product was the crude oil, or rough oil as we then called it. It was put into a retort and distilled.

We then got a lighter oil. That was subjected to another process by means of sulphuric acid, which produced an oil fit for burning. The thicker oil was applied to burning in out-door lamps and to lubricating purposes. We also got a grease which was used for lubrication. The specific-gravity of the crude oil varied from '920 to '930. I have read Mr. Young's specification, and the process of purification which he describes. Our process and his are almost identical. I did not analyze the crude oil, but I ascertained that it contained paraffin, from the fact that paraffin was visibly deposited from it repeatedly, and constantly in cold weather. Our crude oil having been produced in the form of vapour, passed into a vertical pipe at the end of the retort, which was carried through a wall where there were tanks filled with water, containing the usual refrigerator apparatus; pipes folded or bent, in order to cool the various products. We habitually burned the light oil in the room in which I either sat, or was in the habit of dining. It gave a beautiful light. We sold considerable quantity of the burning oil. It was sold as fast as it was produced.

Cross-examined by Mr. GROVE:

The date at which the oils were made was May, 1850, and previously when I went to Wareham, the oils which had accumulated were immediately purified. I have studied geology a little; but could scarcely call myself a geologist. I have seen a great many specimens of coals and shale. (The witness was shown the specimens of what was represented to be Kimmeridge, and gave his opinion that they both came from the same vein.) The fracture led me to think they came from the same vein. The colour is not very different, and I am not able to speak to the weight; one is harder than the other. I was examined upon the trial, in Scotland, against the Clydesdale Company. I drew no distinction between Kimmeridge shale and coal, not being asked the question. What the company produced was used for varnish and for other purposes, for which asphalte was commonly used. I never heard of the Bituminous Manure Company as part of the undertaking called the Bituminous Shale Company. The crude oil produced at Wareham had an offensive smell. I do not think there is a great deal of nitrogenous matter in Kimmeridge shale. There is nitrogenous matter in all coal.

Mr. Edmund Richard Southby, examined by Sir F. KELLY:

I am a chemist and manager of the Wareham works. I brought up several specimens both of Kimmeridge and Boghead. Two of those specimens were handed to Mr. Valpy, and I was shown this morning the specimen marked K, which I supposed, at first sight, was a specimen of Kimmeridge, but I found I was mistaken, and that it was a specimen of Boghead.

Cross-examined by Mr. GROVE:

I discovered my error in court this morning, before you began asking questions; when it was handed down from Mr. Heathfield. I have seen specimens of Kimmeridge very much like it. We use Boghead at the Wareham works, because it comes cheaper than Kimmeridge.

Re-examined by Sir F. KELLY:

I found the Boghead in use when I went to Wareham, the 1st of March, 1862.

Mr. Heathfield:

I am desirous of saying that that specimen of Boghead is so identical in some of its appearances and characteristics with some of the best specimens of Kimmeridge coal which I have seen, that I can understand myself having been led into an error regarding it. I have seen specimens of Kimmeridge coal, which are so identical with Boghead in appearance, that I may have been deceived in a moment.

Mr. William Percival Pickering, examined by Mr. D. BRUCE:

I am a stock and share broker. In 1849 I was a director of the Bituminous Shale Company. (A copy of the prospectus of the company was put in, and marked by the Registrar.) Oil was sold by that company to the wool trade, at from 1s. to 2s. a gallon. We tried experiments with various retorts, and we found that retorts similar to those used in gas-works were best adapted for that - horizontal retorts. We obtained an oil containing paraffin, I believe, but it is so long ago that my memory is rather weak. The non success of the company I attribute to the heavy rent we paid, and the expense of our experiments, and the cost of getting the shale. The carriage of the coal was as expensive from Kimmeridge to Wareham as it is from Scotland to Wareham, I believe, in consequence of the roads from Kimmeridge being so bad; but we always got ours from Wareham.

Cross-examined by Mr. GROVE:

It is called indiscriminately coal or shale; it varies in quality. I am not a shareholder in the new company. We called the oil we obtained indiscriminately paraffin oil. I smelt the oil; it was not very nice, certainly. There was another prospectus, which contained the term paraffin oil, and which gave an estimate of the receipts and expenditure. (another prospectus was handed to the witness.) This is not the one. I do no not know when this was published; it was done after I left. The Manure company did very well; but just as we were getting into notoriety, it failed for want of funds. We got the shale from the cliffs at Wareham off Colonel Mansell's property ; it was called Gwanage Bay.

Re-examined by Mr. Chance:

I have burnt the oil we produced in a lamp myself, and it gave a very good light. It was a French moderator lamp. The purified oil did not smell; it was like water. We separated the pitch and varnish by a different process; and then we sold it in a different market altogether.

Mr. Edwin Pettitt, examined by Mr. D. BRUCE:

I am a civil engineer and a chemist. I am acquainted wih the geological formation of Dorsetshire. Along the coast, commencing at Encombe, at intervals, as for as Weymouth, there are croppings out of the Kimmeridge shale, clay, and coal.

By the COURT:

I went to the works of the Bituminous Shale Company about July or August in 1850. There was a series of retorts consisting of 120 of what I should call the common gas-retorts at that time, in which the shale, after being broken up into pieces about the size of a walnut, was put and distilled in the usual way, and the product was crude oil. I have read Mr. Young's specification. As far as I could judge, the process at Wareham was the same. The crude oil produced paraffin. Some of the oil was sold to Mr. Clift in 1851. I saw the refrigerator used. It was cooled by water. That was connected with the retort. I should say the specimen marked M. was the same as what I saw used there in 1850.

Cross-examined by Mr. BOVILL:

I never saw any paraffin before 1851. The smell of the oil at Wareham I could not well forget—it was so nasty; you might smell it five miles off. The same objection would not apply to it when it was used as coal. I saw the specimen marked M along with others this morning for the first time.

Re-examined by Sir F. KELLY:

What I saw in 1851 was simply some deposited stuff in the bottom of the receiver called paraffin. We obtained the heavy oil, which we called "greasy oil" by redistilling the crude oil. The paraffin was simply a deposit standing in the distillery-house in cold water; you could see it plain enough. That was after the heavy oil had been distilled. We did not obtain the paraffin—we did not care about it; but the crude oil contained paraffin. I have gone through the whole of Mr. Young's specification, and say that the crude oil obtained at the Kimmeridge works was the same as the crude oil obtained by that specification, save in the difference of material.

Mr. Edmund Richard Southby recalled, and examined by Mr. CHANCE.

This (specimen M) is a specimen of the Kimmeridge coal which I took myself from the beds which were then in situ. I also produce two specimens of the coke reduced from this coal. (Handed in.) I bought coal at Kimmeridge. I put one piece of coal into one of the ordinary retorts, and subject it to the low red heat process. The other piece was subjected to the black heat process, and the specimens I produce were the results, and were waste products after all the oil was extracted. Generally we work with Boghead, but we tried the Kimmeridge for the purposes of this case. Boghead contains from 90 to 110 gallons of bitumen per ton, and the Kimmeridge, only contains about 40 at the outside. Kimmeridge coal is more like ordinary coal, because it fuses on distilling, whereas the Boghead comes out of the retort as it went in.

By the COURT:

The Kimmeridge shale did not fuse.


The scientific witnesses told us that no coal fused. Witness: The coke from the Kimmeridge coal burns well. I have heated the retorts with it.

By the COURT:

The Kimmeridge coal is between Boghead and cannel. The shale is a very poor variety of the coal, just as you have shales with other coals. The Boghead does not fuse, but comes out very nearly in the same shape it went in, like shale. The Kimmeridge coal is more like an ordinary coal than the Boghead. I mean there are only two substances at Kimmeridge—there is the shale, and the coal; because in its unburnt state it resembles Boghead, but in its burnt state it is more like the coal. It resembles bituminous coal—Newcastle gas coal.


The Kimmeridge coal does produce gas in large quantities, but I have not investigated it myself. In March last I received from a man named Brett some crude oil, which I purified. I first of all distilled it in a common iron still, and I then treated it with sulphuric acid and caustic soda. I collected the various products as they came over apart. I collected them at three times—first a light oil, then a heavier oil, and then a very heavy oil, each of which I purified separately. I have specimens of the products which I obtained. (Exhibits A and B were handed to the witness, and identified by him.) Exhibit A is a specimen of the crude oil, as I received it. B is a burning oil, which I produced in this way. I distilled the crude oil, and took the first portion that came over; about one-third of the whole quantity I put into the still. This portion I then treated with sulphuric acid - about 10 per cent; and then pouring it off from the impurities which the acid caused to subside, I washed it with a small quantity of caustic soda.

By the COURT:

Caustic soda is not carbonate of soda. It is pure soda free from carbonic acid. I did not put the soda in a solid state into it. I put it in a liquid state; I should have said a solution of caustic soda.


I did not get any spirit, the oil had been kept 14 years; the spirit had evaporated; but when I distilled Kimmeridge coal there was spirit. The next product that came over I purified in the some way, and obtained the oil C.

By the COURT:

I purified B as it was running from the still. I took the first third that came over, and after that purification is B. The second third which came over after purification by the same process that I mentioned is C. C is treated in the same manner as B; but it is a second third of the distillation, and, therefore, a heavier oil. The first oil that runs is a light oil, and that I purified by itself, and notwithstanding the sulphuric acid and the alkali I could get nothing better than this. I consider the burning oil the more valuable of the two. The other third, D, I purified by the same process, and on cooling it solidified into a mass, and a quantity of paraffin was contained in it.


The temperature of the court is too high; but in a low temperature the paraffin in D is perfectly solid. The process I followed to obtain these various products was similar to the process which is described by Mr. Young in his specification.

Cross-examined by Mr. HINDMARSH:

Before I was employed by this company I was a chemist employed chiefly in breweries. I was in Allsopp's for some time. I had no furnace experience of the treatment of coal than that which every chemist gets in the laboratory. I knew nothing of the Kimmeridge coal before I went into the employment of these parties.

By the COURT:

Kimmeridge shale was found in the some pit where I found the Kimmeridge coal, the beds lie one above another; at the very ton of all there is a thin bed of coal; then there are various beds of shale with rock between them and schistus matter; then you come down to the bar coal, of which there are 2 strata altogether - about 18 inches.


There are about 10 feet of shale.

By the COURT:

I bought the coal I put into the retort at Kimmeridge. l did not see it raised from the pit myself.


The whole height of the shales is about 60 or 70 feet. The mine has been worked ever since the first company was working in 1850. I first went to Kimmeridge to see the practicability of bringing the Kimmeridge coal into operation again. I broke the coal I operated upon into pieces, and put about 3 cwt. into the retort. I operated three times in that way. Exhibit P is the result of the second experiment, at low red heat, and exhibit O is the result of the third experiment, at black heat. The first was also at black heat. We do not set our retort in brickwork; we spring our arch under the retort, which lies upon that arch, and leaves two flues at the side, through which we look. The fire plays on almost every part of the retort except the top. I have not the product of the first charge. I did not see any of the retorts charged. I examined the retort before it was charged. In the third instance I kept my eye upon it from beginning to end. I cannot recollect whether I examined the interior of the retort in the second instance. I saw it when the charge was withdrawn. The second charge was about 12 hours distilling, but I have no memorandum. I should say exhibit P was near the top of the retort. It exhibits symptoms of having been fused in the ordinary way; the lower part has not been fused because it is more shaly. You would have a fused mass below that portion and a shaly mass above that. This part clearly shows that it was melting and effervescing. I think there was about an even portion of the fused and the unfused in the retorts. I saw the retort before the third charge was put in; it had no redness, it was hot but not red. The process continued about 24 hours. We call it black heat when it is sufficient to get off the oil and you cannot see any redness when I you look in. I had no means of seeing the interior during the process. The specimen of coke which I have produced shows that peculiar appearance which you get if you heat bituminous coal slowly, and get the development of the gas. If crude oil is put into the retort there is a coke left something similar. There is a more perfect fusion.

Re-examined by Mr. CHANCE:

While the operations were going on I was about the works. I looked into the retort-house occasionally. and saw how the men were going on. I weighed the coal myself. I saw the retorts discharged in both instances. I took no note of the coke in the first experiment. I took what I considered to be a fair specimen of the coke from the barrow, immediately after the retorts were discharged. You do not get true columns of coke except at a very high temperature.

Mr. Andrew Graham Yool, examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL;

I have for a good many years been accustomed to chemistry, so far as connected with oils and fats. I have been in the service of the defendant, Mr. Fernie, at Broxburn, 10 miles from Edinburgh. since August last. Coal is not at all fused in those works. I have visited the pits where the mineral which we work is produced. There is one pit close to our works. The shale is furnished to us in pretty large blocks, varying in colour slightly; some darker and others a paler brown. They are laminated to a considerable extent; they all have sub-conchoidal fractures in breaking across the grain. I am acquainted with the Calder Hall shale. We do not work it; we work Broxburn shale only. Calder Hall is within 4 miles. (The witness identified the specimens produced by Professor Ansted, and which are marked in the table handed in by him 46 L, 45, and 47.

Cross-examined by Mr. GROVE:

I got those specimens myself, about five weeks ago, I should think.

Mr. John Brett, examined by Mr. D. BRUCE:

I am a brazier and tin-plate worker. About March 1st, 1850, I had a can of oil from the Bituminous Shale Company [produced]. I also obtained refined oil, to try experiments with. The crude oil was called rough oil.

By the COURT:

I ordered it from the company. I have no memorandum of what I called it when I ordered it. I do not know that anybody called it rough oil; it was as it came out from the retort. I live at Wareham.

By Mr. D. BRUCE:

I was engaged in the Clydesdale case. That was about three years ago. On that occasion I took some of the oil to Edinburgh, and gave it to a young man named Woodfries. (Two bottles produced). These appear to be the same, for what I know. I have some of the same sort (produced.) I have had this in my possession ever since. I gave some out of this can to the last witness, Southby. I produce the lamp in which the oil was burnt.

Cross-examined by Mr. BOVILL:

I can speak to the can in my possession; but I cannot say that the samples produce are the same, because they have not been in my possession. That is the lamp. When the oil was first made it was a thick stuff, and that is all I know about it. It has a very disagreeable smell.

Re-examined by Mr. D. BRUCE;

The smell I described was before the oil was purified.

Mr. George Woolfries, examined by Mr. CHANCE:

I am managing foreman of the Wareham Oil and Candle Company's works at Drumgray. In the latter end of 1849 or the beginning of 1850, I was in the employ of the Bituminous Shale Company at Wareham. I was in the retort-room. There were about 10 or 12 men employed besides myself. I could not say exactly. There were 10 retorts—gas-retorts, shape D. We were distilling Kimmeridge coal and shale. The fire was underneath the retorts. The temperature was low red, just visible at the finish. The distillation generally took about 8 hours. The product was a crude oil, which was put into iron stills and distilled afterwards; it was then tried with sulphuric acid, allowed to settle, and then washed with caustic soda. The purified oil was a burning oil. I frequently saw it burning. and it was sold as a burning oil. There was also a lubricating oil made and sold; and grease was also made and sold. We sold some of the oil to the circus people in 1850 for the purpose of lighting their circus. I am sure it was before the autumn of 1850. A man named Welstead was working at that time. The Kimmeridge coal is used by the people there for fuel. I have examined the rock and mineral at Kimmeridge, and I know the appearance of it if I see it. I remained in the employ of the company until they gave over and shut up the place in 1853; but the operations were not going on all the time. I was there a twelvemonth after they finished working, just to keep thing straight. The works are being carried on at Wareham still by another company. They carried on the operation of distilling Kimmeridge coal, and it has been going on ever since.

By the COURT:

The new company began in April, 1854, and I remained there till October in the same year, when they closed their works.


When the second company closed, Mr. Wanostrocht took the works and carried on similar operations. He carried on the Kimmeridge coal distillation about two years. The Wareham Oil and Candle Company then took them up, and the manufacture has been carried on ever since. It is the same company which have their works at Drumgray. They work shale. Drumgray is between Edinburgh and Glasgow. The company have also worked Boghead some years. Mr. Wanostrocht first commenced to work Boghead; I think it was June, 1853, and they have worked it ever since.


TUESDAY April 19th 1864.

Mr. George Woolfries recalled, and examined by Mr. CHANCE.

I recollect a Mr. Binney calling upon me in 1860 somewhere in October. He said he came from Scotland, and I declined answering him.

By the COURT:

I declined to answer him because I was subpoenaed to go to Edinburgh and was told to answer no questions.


At that time, the Boghead had been used about 2 years; it was used quite openly. The oils that we get from the Drumgray shales do not smell.

Cross-examined by Mr. GROVE:

I do not know whether Colonel Mansell, the owner of the land there, prohibited the Wareham coal from being distilled on account of the smell.

Cross-examined by Sir F. KELLY:

I am perfectly familiar with the article of which M is a specimen, and it is the kind of substance which the first, second, and third company used. It was with the same kind of material that we operated upon and continued the distillation till the oil came off, and then we stopped. The heat never exceeded a dull red heat - it just turned from black. We found that the oil we produced would burn pretty well in a lamp similar to that produced; we used to burn the oil in the works. It was redistilled before we got the burning oil.

By the COURT:

It did not smoke in those lamps. It also burnt in a long lamp, but then it smoked, but not such a great deal.

By Sir F. KELLY:

There is a shale which does not produce coke. The Kimmeridge shale does not produce a coke, neither does the Boghead. The Kimmeridge coal and the slab cannel do produce a coke.

Cross-examined by Mr. GROVE:

The substance we used, and of which M is a specimen, came from Kimmeridge Bay in Dorsetshire, at the bottom vein; it was to the south-east, close to the sea; it would stand quite south. There were several labourers houses near. It is about two miles from Smedborough. It was worked in Wareham in 1850. Colonel Mansell's is the nearest house to the spot where this was obtained; it is not above a mile. There is a road by which they used to bring it with carts, but that applies to the shale generally. It lies south of Colonel Mansell's. A man named Marsh got it from Kimmeridge; he sent for us to find carts to fetch it. I cannot specify the spot further than by the name of Kimmeridge Bay.

Re-examined by Sir. F. KELLY:

These materials lie in strata with an upper and a lower strata. That specimen came from the lower strata, and the other, which I call the shale, comes from the upper.

John Vine, examined by Mr. CHANCE:

I helped to build the oil-works at Wareham in 1849. I was employed there at the retorts after the works were completed. I continued there about a twelvemonth. The temperature was at a pale red heat. There was a sight-plug, which pulled out of the wall, so that we could see all round the retorts, and that was sufficient to ascertain that it was at the pale red heat. The crude products were taken from us, and distilled and purified to a burning oil, in very much the same way as described in Mr. Young's specification. I know the rock from which the Kimmeridge coal and Kimmeridge shale are taken. I have been there, and got a quantity of it in 1850. I remember we worked a material similar to that (referring to the specimen N). It answers well for domestic purposes.

Cross-examined by Mr. BOVILL:

I should say the place where we got it from was about a mile and a half south-west of Colonel Mansell's house. They have to take off the earth at the top. They begin on the slate and work down to it, and take it out by batches. There are 5 or 6 feet of slaty stuff like that marked No. 42; then we come to the Kimmeridge coal, which is about 8 or 10 inches. Then you come to cement stone, as they call it. Great quantities of it go away to the Isle of Wight for cement at the present time. We used small coal for heating the retorts generally. It came to us by rail. It was like common Newcastle coal, but small. I read Mr. Young's specification about three months ago with a man named Wilstead, who used to work with me. I know nothing of Du Buisson nor his specification. The Kimmeridge coal produced a disagreeable smell—I do not say very disagreeable; it never injured me at all. I did not mind it; but there were a great many people who did not like the gas escaping in the air. It was afterwards brought round in pipes under the retorts, and burned. That was on account of the smell.

Re-examined by Sir F. KELLY:

The shale and coal used to be taken out and got on the top, and we fetched it away to the works. We took it out in batches, and worked right down to the bottom.

By the COURT:

The men ran it up in barrows on planks. The substance that made the cement was under our general coal, and ran away in a vein right out into the sea.

John Barnett, examined by Mr. D. BRUCE.

I was master of the Wareham railway-station from 1848 to 1859, and am now an hotel-keeper. On leaving the railway-station towards Dorchester, the works of the Bituminous Shale Company come up to the boundary-line of the station within 100 or 150 yards. There was no secrecy in the works there carried on. They manufactured a white coloured oil, which they called shale oil. I remember Evans and Walstead working there. In the spring of 1850 a sample of paraffin made at the works was shown me by Mr. Pickering.

Cross-examined by Mr. GROVE:

I say it was not in the spring of 1851. It was as long as the half of your hand. The coals the warehouse people used they got by boat from Newcastle. I am not a geologist.

Re-examined by Mr. CHANCE:

I never saw Kimmeridge coal used at the works. They might have used it for burning. I have seen it burned in Kimmeridge.

John Clavell Mansell Esq., examined by Mr. D. BRUCE.

I am the proprietor of the Kimmeridge coal-pits. The Kimmeridge coal, was burned in my father's hall. It was called South Boghead by the company. I forget the company's name now which so called it. It is used by the villagers in the neighbourhood. I first saw it being burned by the villagers about 1835.

Cross-examined by Mr. BOVILL:

This was always classified as a shale, full of animal remains. I like the odour from it very much, although it is not very agreeable to some people. There are pyrites in the deposits.

Re-examined by Mr. CHANCE:

I have not smelt Mr. Young's oil. The, common term for these beds in our district is Kimmeridge coal or blackstone; in fact, there is a very extraordinary manufacture from it; little round discs are made of this stuff which go by the name, and have for years and hundreds of years, of Kimmeridge coaI money. Sir Richard Hoare wrote a work on the Kimmeridge coal money.

Henry Hibbs, examined by Mr. CHANCE:

I am an innkeeper at Kimmeridge, where I have lived all my life. I know the mineral on the coast there. I can remember it being used for fuel for 40 years. It has had the same name of Kimmeridge coal during all that time.



creative commons

We are happy to licence use of many images, extracts, and other resources of this website under a Creative Commons attribution, non-commercial licence (Scotland). See full copyright statement. Such material should be attributed to Almond Valley Heritage Trust and, where practical, a hyperlink provided to www.scottishshale.co.uk.