He agreed with the Royal Commissioners with regard to the recommendation of ventilation of coal vessels, but considered that their recommendations did not go far enough. There must be something to induce a current and not leave that to depend on the motion of the vessel.

He accounted for the men in the hold escaping without injury by considering that the force of the explosion did not go in the direction where they were at work at the time. Had they been near some of them must been burnt. They could not possibly have escaped. It was possible that the falling of a lighted candle caused the explosion, as the force of the explosion was in the tank, and it was quite possible that the force of the explosion was sufficient to break the beams without reaching the men.

In reply to Mr Jones, Mr Wales said that when a hold was divided into an upper and lower by means of a deck, pipes must be inserted so as to ventilate the surface of the coal above and below, or ventilate every surface, no matter how many there were. The system he proposed was really an inexpensive one. He considered that all ships carrying steam coal cargoes should be fitted with fans and the two pipes for ventilation, because explosions occurred on board ships that did not have them.

Several other witnesses were examined—Mr Baker, deputy-superintendent of Mercantile Marine at Cardiff, Mr Thomas Ð. Evans, ship agent for Ocean Steam Coal Co. Mr John Winter, foreman to the Shipbuilding and Repairing Co., Penarth, where the vessel was repaired, and who stated that the damage amounted to about £400 or £500 [equivalent to £48,481 or £60,601 in 2019] ; Mr Sloggett and Mr Mansfield, shipwrights' surveyors to the Board of Trade at Cardiff; and Mr John Washer, foreman of the coal trimmers, who stated that when the vessel was formerly at Cardiff the trimmers refused to go into the tank hold until a hole was cut in the 'tween decks so as to ventilate it. He wanted two holes, but the captain would only cut one large one without consulting his owners.

Mr Vachell addressed the court for the owners and captain, pointing out that the vessel was ventilated in the usual manner of vessels carrying coal cargoes. They were the owners of other large steam vessels, and were most anxious as regard the ventilation of vessels. The captain had also admitted that whatever he requited was immediately granted. He complained of the proceedings of the Board of Trade putting the owners to considerable expense when so small an amount of damage was done to a vessel valued at £30,000. [equivalent to £3,636,064 in 2019]

Mr Ravenshill replied for the Board of Trade urging that they were actuated only by a desire for the preservation of life, and but for an accident the whole of the poor fellows in the hold might have perished.

The court retired, and after half an hour returned, when Mr Jones said that the court were of opinion that the damage to the Horseguards was due to an explosion of gas in the tank of No.3 hold, but they did not think that the master or any other person was in default, and made no order as to costs. They considered that the ventilation of all the holds, with the exception of No.3, was in accordance with the system usually adopted in vessels carrying coal cargoes, but doubted whether the system of ventilation was as perfect as was supposed. They considered that the practice of using naked lights was a dangerous one but as no other system of working had been suggested they could only recommend that the utmost care should be exercised in seeing to the ventilation of holds, as Mr Wales was of opinion safety lamps would be useless.'

South Wales Daily News [325] [361] 13th September 1880.