660 
THE FATAL EXPLOSION IN WAKING OXYGEN GAS. 
an optician in Market Place, wishing to prepare a quantity of oxygen gas for some 
exhibition in the evening, and having exhausted his own materials, sent his boy to Mr. 
Hughes’s shop for 3 lb. of manganese, and 7 lb. of chlorate of potash, that being the 
usual proportion. The lad went to Mr. Hughes’s shop, and was told to come again ; he 
did so, and was then given two parcels, one containing the 3 lb. of manganese, the # 
other 6 lb. of chlorate of potash, there being no more in stock. Mr. Morgan, in pre¬ 
paring to make the gas, used some of the manganese, and laid the rest aside. He put 
this mixture into the retort, and put it upon the fire, and in a very short time there was 
a loud and heavy explosion, which knocked him down. Thinking the fault was in the 
retort, Mr. Morgan sent his boy with some of the manganese to Samuel Crowther’s (who 
was in the habit of making oxygen gas for the theatres), to ask him to make him some 
gas; and on the way the boy, by his master’s directions, got an additional pound of 
manganese at Mr. Mottershead’s. While Mr. Crowther was heating the retort in which 
was the mixture Mr. Morgan had got from Mr. Hughes’s, an explosion took place, which 
partly blew the house down, and caused Crowther’s death under circumstances with 
which the public are no doubt familiar. The jury would now have to inquire whether 
this man’s death was caused by the explosion of manganese purchased at Mr. Hughes’s ; 
and whether Mr. Hughes adulterated it, or sold it knowing it was so. On the Monday 
(the explosion occurring on a Saturday), a policeman went to Mr. Hughes’s shop, and 
asked for a portion of the same material as had been supplied to Mr. Morgan. A parcel 
was given to the policeman from the partly-filled drawer out of which Mr. Morgan had 
been supplied on the Saturday. This was subsequently analysed by Professor Eoscoe, 
of Owens College, and found to be quite pure. That procured from Mr. Mottershead 
he also found pure. After the inquest, the scrapings of the drawer at Mr. Hughes’s 
were analysed, and found to be nearly as adulterated and therefore explosive as that 
found on Crowther’s premises after the accident, and which contained 30-| per cent, of 
pure manganese, and about 26 per cent, of carbon ; but the portion kept by Mr. Morgan 
from the same parcel contained 30 per cent, of manganese and about 19 per cent, of 
carbon, the carbon being the cause of adulteration and explosion. A portion of the 
manganese kept in Mr. Hughes’s reserve canister in another part of his shop, and from 
which the drawer was filled when empty, consisted of 51 per cent, of manganese and 
about 5 per cent, of carbon. The suggestion offered by the prosecution upon these facts 
was that Mr. Hughes adulterated the manganese with carbon, and that, hearing of the 
explosion, he replaced the contents of the drawer with pure manganese before the police 
visited him. There was a little additional evidence to that given before the coroner from 
whose court Mr. Hughes was committed, and the material points it contained were, first, 
that the Kev. Mr. Lumsden, congregational minister at Cheadle, on the 2nd December, 
purchased some manganese (proved by analysis to be slightly adulterated) at Mr. 
Hughes’s, and that it slightly exploded when placed over the fire ; secondly, that adul¬ 
terated articles were found adhering to the bottom of Mr. Hughes’s drawer, as referred 
to by the learned counsel in his statement; and, thirdly, that the explosions at both 
Mr. Morgan’s and the deceased's brought down quantities of soot, which covered the floor 
and furniture, and might possibly have got into the bags containing the manganese, soot 
being possibly the form of carbon in which consisted the adulteration. Some of these, 
facts were brought out by Serjeant Simon in his cross-examination. The learned 
serjeant, in fact, founded a brief speech in defence upon them, and ridiculed the idea that 
a respectable tradesman like Mr. Hughes should, for the paltry gain of a few pence, 
deceive his customers, cause .lives to be risked, and endanger his own reputation. The 
jury said they would not trouble the learned judge to sum up the evidence, but his 
lordship thought it would be more satisfactory to do so. He therefore pointed out the 
main features of the case, but did not read through the whole of the evidence, that 
being in his opinion quite unnecessary. The jury immediately acquitted the prisoner, 
and the foreman’s “Not guilty” was followed by loud applause, which penetrated to 
the other parts of the building, and communicated the news of Mr. Hughes’s acquittal to 
his many friends who were “ waiting for the verdict.” The learned judge lectured the 
spectators upon the impropriety of their demonstration, which he said he strongly con¬ 
demned, because, although the friends of the prisoner had a right to rejoice out of 
court, there ought never to be any cheering in a court of justice before the judge and 
jury. Mr. Hughes left the court escorted by a large number of his acquaintances. 
