Nelson & His World

In July 1774, while sailing out of Plymouth Sound, the Kent fired a 13 gun salute to the admiral. After the last gun was fired, to quote the Captain's log "the powder chest on the poop blew up". 8 seamen and 2 marines were killed and 20 seamen and 19 marines were wounded. The explosion entirely destroyed the Captain's cabin and the wardroom, and set fire to the driver, mizen and ensign. The ship was severely damaged with several beams broken or sprung and returned to the dockyard for repairs.

Beatson reports that nearly 360 pounds of gunpowder was in the chest or chests that blew up. Captain Feilding seems to have been praised for his coolness in getting the fire put out, but my question is why was so much gunpowder on deck? I have not come across any mention of disciplinary action as a result of the accident.

Was it normal to have so much gunpowder on deck?

My understanding was that cartridges were brought up to the guns individually, and that the only chest on deck would have been a small arms chest.

Another anecdote about the event has it that a marine drummer "was sitting upon the chest in question when its contents ignited, and blown into the sea, from whence he was taken on board without having received the slightest injury!"

Tony,

I have found this about the Kent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Kent_%281762%29

You will note that Wikipedia give the amount of powder in the chest as approximately 400lbs. Looking at her armament and given the position of the powder chest, I assume it would have been her quarterdeck nine pounders that were used for the salute.

In normal circumstances I would think, like you, that it would have been very unusual, and of course very dangerous, for so much powder to have been on deck at any one time. As you know the RN was normally very strict regarding the handling of powder, right from the magazine to the gun. That of course would have been under battle conditions, but it seems the rules were relaxed here.

Without having any information to hand, I would imagine that the captain had the chest brought on to the poop the more readily to supply the cartridges to the guns, than to have to use the usual route. In theory this would make more sense, since the salutes had to be fired at regular intervals and I believe there was a rhyme that the gunner said to himself to time this, although I cannot quite remember it. (I think it went something like: 'If I weren't mad, I shouldn't be here - Fire one...', the next part of the ditty being of the same length, followed by 'Fire two' and so on.)

I rather get the impression however, that the above procedure may have been normal when firing salutes, to get the timing etc, and perhaps that is why there appears to be no apparent disciplinary action in this case.

Kester

Many thanks for the information and your thoughts, Kester. The Wikipedia information almost certainly originates from the entry in Marshall for G F Ryves, from where my quote about the marine drummer also came: Beatson refers to
However, the Captain's log specifically refers to firing a salute to the admiral and "the powder chest on the poop".

I can't be sure there was no disciplinary action, as I haven't yet searched very hard.

A few questions:

Would the salute to the port admiral have been fired with guns on both sides, or with the guns to seaward? (My point being there were only 14 guns on the quarterdeck.)

Presumably the interval between firing from the gunner's rhyme (which I believe was supposed to be 5 seconds) was too short to allow any reloading during a thirteen gun salute? If so, why the need to have more powder so close to hand?

Carrying a 360 or 400 lb chest all the way up to the poop deck seems odd if the powder is needed on the quarterdeck.

Also, I thought the guns were kept loaded, so presumably the process before the salute needed only the shot to be removed.

This was of course peacetime, and I think this was the first occasion the Kent had been to sea for over a year, the previous occasion being the royal review of the fleet at Spithead in June 1773 - when they had plenty of practice firing salutes!

This is the account that appeared in the contemporary journal The Annual Register:

"4th July - At Plymouth , the roundhouse of the KENT man of war suddenly blew up, and in its consequences exhibited a picture perhaps the most dreadful and shocking that that it is possible for human nature to conceive. By the splinters of the deck in bursting, between forty and fifty brave fellow were (some of them) either so terribly maimed as to have had their limbs taken off, or scorched so as to be deprived of their sight, whilst others again are flayed all over. There are now 35 of them patients in the hospital at Plymouth, one since dead of two fractures, his arm and leg, he not surviving long after an amputation of the latter. It is remarkable no officer received any hurt, except Lieut. Shea of the Marines, who is slightly wounded - the accident happened in saluting the Admiral, by some sparks falling into an arms chest which stood on the after part of the poop and great cabbin. A drummer, who happened to be sitting on the lid of the chest, was blown into the air, fell overboard and was picked up by the Albion's boat, without receiving the least hurt...."

The question remains as to why so much powder was stored on the upper deck.

There was actually a difference in how much powder was used for action, saluting and scaling. The normal rule for action (the service charge) was half the weight of the ball - i.e. a 9 pound cannon would require a cartridge of 4 and half pounds weight of powder. However, for saluting, the charge was 'two-thirds of the service charge' and that for scaling (meaning to clean the gun by blowing out the scale) was one third.

Perhaps, if the upper deck guns were being scaled, then a salute followed, after which a service charge would be required, the Gunner (with the agreement of the Captain) had made up the different strength cartridges in the magazine, but had then taken filled cartridges to the upper deck to be stowed in the existing arms chest.

Although of course, that would not still not explain why such a large amount of powder was kept in the chest - sufficient for 4+ service cartridges per gun.

In more modern times, warships have had something called a "ready use locker", which was a small store of ammunition ready to hand, close to the weapon, allowing a guns crew to engage without waiting for the stuff to come up from the magazine .... perhaps this was an early example ??

And on further reflection, the powder required for the small arms used by the marines and sentinels could also have been stored in the quarterdeck arms chest.

Thank you, PhiloNauticus, for all your information and thoughts, particularly the info on the different charges for salutes, scaling and normal service. Presumably your calculations on the amount of powder that might have been stored was based on the nine pounders on the quarter deck. There is no mention of scaling the guns in the Captain's log, but if the salute was fired from the larger upper deck guns, or they were planning to scale the larger guns once out to sea, then the cartridges removed may perhaps have added up to a larger weight.

I am puzzled by the story of the drummer sitting on top of the chest. Presumably that means the lid was closed, in which case, how were the contents ignited? But perhaps, as Beatson possibly suggests, there may have been cartridges or spilt powder outside the chest.

Another version of the story in Admiral Duckworth's obituary in the Gentleman's Magazine suggests that an 'ammunition chest' exploding caused the 'aftermost magazine' to blow up. (Duckworth was a lieutenant in the Kent at the time.) This version is also repeated in Pettigrew. But I would have thought that the after magazine blowing up would have been even more catastrophic and would have sunk the ship. Also the Captain's log describes damage to the 'great cabin' and to the wardroom and offices, but does not mention any damage to the gunroom or below.

All the published accounts except the Annual Register date from many years after the event. I note that the chest (on the poop) is described as an 'arms chest' in the Annual Register, and as a 'powder chest' in the Captain's log.

The rest of the account in the Annual Register was also very interesting to me:
Obviously they encountered some bad weather, but it suggests that their seamanship was a bit rusty with so much time spent in port in peacetime. The list of ships is almost a roll call of the ships in which Charles Mansfield and his brothers served around that time. Charles and an older brother were in the Kent, another brother had recently transferred out of the Cerberus, another was probably still in the Dublin, and another had just transferred out of the Albion.