The Inquiry into the Disaster at Albion Colliery, Cilfynydd, near Pontypridd on the 23rd. June 1894, was conducted by J. Roskill, Esq., Barrister-at-Law and by J.T. Robson, Esq., Henry Hall Esq., and Joseph S. Martin, Esq., Her Majesty’s Inspectors of Mines and presented to the Right Honourable H.H. Asquith, Q.C., M.P., the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

One of the survivors, George Bamford said he was working with others at the double parting on Mordecai’s level in No.5 district when the explosion occurred and he gave his description to the inquiry. He said:-

“I heard a sound like thunder, the biggest I have ever heard. I heard two sounds without scarcely an interval. Each just the same noise. I thought it was an explosion and I stood where I was. I heard a door between us and the engine parting open and shut with a bang. The level directly after was filled with dust and our lamps went out. There were four of us together and two inside. I think I saw a shade of flame in the dust a bluish colour. It was coming above us along the roof. I was standing up, The place was 7 feet high. We started off to walk down the Pantddu dip. We met afterdamp in the parting near the dip. The flame and dust passed over us and we came out. In the Pantddu dip the afterdamp was very strong and I recollect no more until I came to myself when Dr. Little and Henry Watkins were with me at the air bridge. I heard some one say at home that it was about 8 o’clock when I got out. I was not singed by the flame except a little on my eye lashes.”

After an exhaustive enquiry which lasted nine days before Coroners R.B. Reece of Cardiff and R.J. Rhys of Aberdare when all interested parties were represeted and evidence heard, a jury of 17 men returned the verdict that:-

“The jury find that the deceased had lost their lives through an explosion of gas at the Albion Colliery on the 23rd. June 1894 which explosion was accelerated and extended by coal dust but the jury disagree as to the exact place at which the explosion had it’s origin, and we are unanimously of the opinion that shotfiring as practised in the colliery when men are at work, without sufficient precautions as to their safety and contrary to rules we are also of the opinion that the under-manager neglected his duty in not seeing that his subordinates in the night shift performed their duties in accordance with rules that the firemen were negligent in reporting gas when found, and that there is not a proper system of watering in the mine.

The jury beg to make the following recommendations:-

1. That shot firing in timber shall be absolutely prohibited.
2. That old workings shall be properly stowed or gobbed.
3. That a record of men in the mine shall be kept at all hours.
4. That thorough inspections shall be more frequently made by Her Majesty’s Inspectors, because we consider the present examinations by the workmen’s representatives worthless.”

The Inspectors commented on the verdict of the jury:-
“It will be seen that the jury did not connect the explosion with shot-firing though their first and strongest recommendation had reference to blasting. Possibly the evidence of the mining engineers, bring in direct opposition to that rendered by ourselves and Messrs. Gray and Sims gave rise to the uncertainty in their minds to this matter. For the same reason. probably, they were unable to agree to the place where the explosion started.

In other respects the verdict is entirely in accord with our views.
We think the omission by the owners’ representative to arrange blasting, when he sanction the alteration of the hours on Saturdays, a most serious oversight.

With reference to the recommendations of the jury we desire to make the following Observations:-

1. As to shot-firing in timbers, we concur in their recommendation that tis should be absolutely prohibited. It is unnecessary to remove timbers by blasting as they can be removed in other ways, and, indeed, having recourse to explosives for this purpose is most unusual and contrary to good mining. Until this explosion happened we had never heard that such a thing was attempted.
2. hat all old workings should be properly stowed and gobbed. This is desirable for safety in longwall workings, but so long as old workings are adequately ventilated in a mine it is not necessarily by reason of old workings left open in a colliery. We are of the opinion that the proportion of old workings left open in the colliery were not excessive moreover, that such as did exist had no influence in extending the explosion and thus increasing the loss of life.
3. That a record of the number of men in the mine shall be kept at all times. This is also a reasonable recommendation. In safety lamp collieries it can be readily carried out provided each person on taking his lamp from the lamp room on the surface leaves in it’s place a token or tally with a number corresponding to that of his safety lamp.
4. We do not agree with the jury that workmen’s inspections are useless on the contrary we think that, when properly carried out, as they generally are in South Wales and Monmouthshire, they cannot fail to do good.”