Manslaughter charge after eight lives lost in explosion

But now Charles Gardner stood accused of manslaughter by disobeying a principal safety instruction that led to a fire that devastated the Eastern Monarch lying at anchor near Fort Monkton at Spithead and the loss of eight lives.

One of the most famous vessels of her time, the 1,600 ton, 280ft long three masted sailing ship had been destined for Gravesend in Kent but Henry Morris, her commander and part-owner, wanted fresh provisions on board.

Read more: The sharks found in the waters near Hampshire​ >>>

The vessel had been hired by the Council of India to bring home troops invalided in the north west provinces of Britain's jewel in the crown. Having sailed from Calcutta on February 10, 1859, she was carrying 352 soldiers, 29 women, 55 children, cabin passengers as well as crew, making a total compliment of 524 people.

Her cargo, which included elephants tusks and other Indian products, principally consisted of linseed and nearly 3,000 bags of saltpetre stored in the aft and rear sections, with a portion of the latter kept with the magazine.

Virtually everyone had retired for the night on June , 1859 but crewmen were furling sails when a gigantic explosion at the stern rocked the boat.

Skylights were blown out, a hideous chocking fumes filled the main deck which was quickly engulfed by fire. So great was the explosion that many were thrown from their berths, women were shrieking, men rushing to save their wives and families, dashing through devouring flames to reach the main deck. With the vessel engulfed in flames, there was pandemonium.

Fortunately the Indiaman was close to shore. Four boats containing wives and children were lowered and met by two local barges, the Petrel and Providence. Two men of war shortly arrived to save the soldiers, crew and officers.

Reports of the time spoke of the crew's high discipline, ready obedience and fortitude, preventing what would have one of the British greatest maritime disasters. Remarkably, only eight died, tragically five of them children killed in the explosion.

So who was to blame for the near catastrophe?

Investigators blamed Gardner, the 30-year-old captain's steward sailing on the ship for the first time and one of the last to leave the inferno.

On July 18, he appeared at Hampshire Assizes, charged with manslaughter, which he firmly denied.

It was the Crown's case that he had taken an unguarded light below, strictly against orders and amounting to negligence.

Prosecutor Mr Collier QC commented: "A great ship of this kind, manned by a skillful crew, can almost defy the wind and the waves but fire is an enemy from which none can escape and of all scenes, most appallingly, there is nothing like a burning ship."

Having elucidated the precautions taken to prevent fire and explosion, he commented: "I need not tell you how important it is to be all the more careful in those areas adjoining the powder magazine. There were strict instructions that under no pretence should the steward or anyone else enter the powder magazine or the gun room adjoining with an open light."

The coroner's inquest revealed Gardner had entered the gun room some six hours before the explosion when he ignited a match, lit an uncovered light and threw the match onto the floor where it smouldered. On leaving, he fastened down the hatchway so no current of air flowed.

"You can easily understand how a fire could smoulder for some time. When the explosion took place,the hatchway was thrown up, a current of air was produced and the flames broke out."

However, the weakness in the Prosecution's was revealed under questioning from the judge, Baron Bramwell, and Collier accepted that although the gun room was situated under the troop deck, soldiers had not discerned any smell of fire until the explosion. The hatchway had four holes for a hand to be inserted and to be lifted up, and through the holes a light might have been seen.

The judge warned Collier that although he could not say there was positively no evidence to go before the jury, it would be very difficult to connect the fire with Gardner's actions several hours earlier.

A juror stood up and concurred.

The judge said a fire might smoulder for a long time if for instance a light was placed in the middle of rags where no air could reach it. "But I do not see it could be a smouldering fire if the service is burning."

Though he did not directly direct the Prosecution to withdraw the charge, Collier wisely noted his observation and following discussions with the defence, dropped the matter in favour of a new charge - that of committing a misdemeanour by wilfully breaching duty, tending to the immediate destruction and serious damage to a ship.

On advice, Gardner once more pleaded not guilty.

Collier now proceeded on the basis of carelessness, submitting: "Although probably he never contemplated any mischief would arise from what he did, yet there can be no question in that he disobeyed his orders."

There followed contrary opinions from soldiers. Two confirmed the steward had not gone below or returned with an open light but one claimed to have seen a light below as though it was part of a burning match, the other didn't. A third serviceman claimed he had seen Gardner go below and light a match which he tossed aside and a fourth believed he had been using an oil lamp.

The evidence concluded, defence barrister Mr Coleridge ridiculed the prosecution's case.

"I really hardly know what to combat, unless it is a large mass of prejudice, which my learned friend has endeavoured to stir into active hostility against my client. The Crown have themselves asked you to acquit him of all connection with this terrible and appalling calamity, yet they are now asking you to find him guilty of criminal misconduct by an act which has no connection with the calamity itself, and of which they would not have heard but for the calamity.

"An endeavour is now being made to get from your feelings a conviction of a lesser offence when they cannot succeed in the greater."

Gardner, he said, had lost all his material possessions and the Crown sought to blacken his character and ruin his future prospects.

"There cannot be more hard or ungenerous treatment. The fact that on the charge of manslaughter, the Government met with a miserable defeat, and now they seek to cover their retreat by the present indictment."

Rebutting those accusations, Collier reasoned: "It is no hardship to the prisoner that having accepted an office in the ship, he should conform to the rules. It is no use to lock the stable door when the steed has gone, and as the prisoner has not conformed to the regulations, he is criminally amenable for his conduct."

The judge guided jurors as to the law, stressing that even if the ship had not suffered damage, he would be as much guilty of the charge as he now was.

"That the prisoner used the open light and was in breach of a breach of duty is abundantly proved but if it is for you to say what was the nature and quality of that breach of duty. If what he did, tended to the destruction and serous damage of the ship, he must be found guilty, but not otherwise."

Following a retirement, the jury returned a verdict that Gardner's actions were a breach of duty, though he did not intend damage.

"That's is irrelevant," the judge told them.

The foreman replied that there had been evidence as to the state of the gun room. Once more they retired before ultimately acquitting him.

A message from the Editor

Thank you for reading this article - we appreciate your support in reading the Daily Echo.

Subscribing to the Echo means you have unrestricted access to the latest news, features and Saints coverage - all with an advertising-light website.

You will also have full access to Saintsplus, your new home for Southampton FC tactical analysis, features and much, much more.

Don't just take my word for it - subscribe today.

Follow the latest breaking news in the Southampton area by searching Southampton News - Breaking News and Incidents on Facebook

Follow the latest court and crime news on our dedicated group by searching Hampshire Court and Crime News on Facebook