Page:The South Staffordshire Coalfield - Joseph Beete Jukes - 1859.djvu/108

90 The present Mr. Gilpin sank a shaft, at a place called Highfields, a little south of Church Bridge, to the depth of 211 feet (70 yards) below the so-called Bottom coal, of which the following is an abstract of the particulars as he communicated them:—

The boring I esteem valuable solely as proving there was that much depth of Coal-measures below the Bottom coal, for I have long come to the conclusion that all indications of thickness of particular beds, &c, derived from borings are too uncertain to be depended on.

The existence of a Three-foot coal, however, about 37 or 40 feet below the Wyrley bottom or Eight-foot is proved from both the boring and the sinking. This is without doubt the Bentley Hey coal. The sinking places a foot coal at 26 feet below this Three-foot, and if the latter be the Bentley Hey coal the foot coal may possibly be the Heathen. At a depth of 132 feet 6 inches underneath this there is, according to the sinking, a coal called Stinking, 14 inches thick. This may very well be the true Stinking or Sulphur coal, which in the southern part of the field lies at a mean depth of 70 feet below the Heathen, though it is not more than 50 or 60 feet below it at Bentley and the Birch Hills.

I believe that Mr. Gilpin himself was convinced that the Stinking coal which he reached was the Top or Two-foot coal of the Brown Hills, which is almost certainly the true Sulphur coal, basing his opinion not only on the sulphureous quality of the coal, but on the occurrence of some igonstone measures above it, believed to be the Pennystone measures, and another which was recognized or supposed to be recognized as the New mine ironstone clod, although it was devoid of ironstone. If this be the Stinking coal, it follows that the Brown Hill and Pelsall coals may be found below it. In this opinion I entirely concur, though it is impossible to feel sure that the lower beds will retain the same thickness and value in the deep or western side of the field which they have on the eastern side.

If there should still rest any doubt upon anybody's mind as to the Wyrley and Essington coals being the representative of the Thick coal in an expanded form, perhaps the following argument may be conclusive. If these coals be other than the Thick coal they must be either above it or below it. If they are entirely above it then the Thick coal must lie in the district between Essington and Wyrley on the one side and Pelsall and the Brown Hills on the other, and must crop out to the surface in that district, inasmuch as beds, which are certainly below the Thick coal, themselves crop out to the eastward of it. It is not very likely, indeed we may say it is quite impossible, that such an outcrop of Thick coal could exist without having been long ago