Wreck Report for 'Ariel' and 'Quayside', 1882

DEPARTMENTAL PAPER No. 87.

M 264/1883

Inquiry as to why assistance was not rendered by the Yarmouth Lifeboats to the "Ariel" and Quayside," when in distress in Yarmouth Roads.

This inquiry followed immediately on those which had been held in the cases of the "Ariel" and "Quayside," and had for its object to ascertain why assistance had not been rendered by the Yarmouth lifeboats to these vessels when in distress in Yarmouth Roads. The case was heard at Yarmouth on the 19th and 20th of December 1882, when Mr. Mansel Jones and Mr. Howard Smith appeared for the Board of Trade; Captain Nepean, the inspector of the Hull district of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, and Robert Hazlett and William Hazlett, the respective coxswains of the Yarmouth lifeboats "Mark Lane" and "Abraham Thomas," were present, but were not represented by either counsel or solicitor. Twelve witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Mansel Jones handed in a statement of the questions, upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. The circumstances are as follow.

The "Ariel" was a barque which had left Hartlepool on the 20th of October last for Southampton with a cargo of coal and a crew of 9 or 10 hands, and, having on the evening of the 24th struck on the south spit of the Scroby Sand, was lost, together with the whole of her crew. She had exhibited signals of distress between 5 and 7 p.m. of that day, which were distinctly seen from and answered by the St. Nicholas lightship, and although the signals both from the "Ariel" and the lightship were seen from Yarmouth, no assistance of any kind went out to her. The "Quayside" is a brig which had left the Tyne on the 9th of November last for Sheerness with a cargo of coal and a crew of nine hands, and, having brought up on the 12th of the same month in Yarmouth Roads, remained there until the morning of the 17th. On the 14th and 16th, finding that she was driving towards the shore, signals of distress were exhibited, which were seen from the shore, but the Yarmouth lifeboat did not go off to her assistance, and it was not until about 6 p.m. of the 16th that the "Victoria" steam tug came alongside with the Gorleston lifeboat "Refuge" in tow, and took off the crew, and on the following morning towed the vessel to Lowestoft.

These being the facts of the case, the Board of Trade has asked for our opinion on a number of questions, the first six of which may be most conveniently taken together.

They are as follow:—"1st. What was the cause of the neglect of the " lifeboats of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution stationed at Great " Yarmouth to render assistance to the "Ariel" on the 24th October 1882, " and to the "Quayside" on the 14th November 1882, in response to signals " of distress exhibited by such vessels, and repeated by the St. Nicholas " lightship? 2. Have signals been exhibited from the St. Nicholas lightship " for the purpose of calling the attention of the authorities of such lifeboats " to vessels in distress, and have such signals not been responded to by " such lifeboats? 3. Is the local committee of the Great Yarmouth branch " of the National Lifeboat Institution, or the secretary of such committee, " or the coxswain of either of such lifeboats, and if so, which of them, to " blame for such neglect to render assistance to such vessels? 4. Is any " other person, and if so, who, to blame for the neglect to launch either of " the said lifeboats in response to such signals of distress? 5. Has either " of such lifeboats been launched since the 18th of January 1881, and if not, " what was the cause of such lifeboats not having been launched since that " date? 6. Is any person, and if so, who, to blame for such lifeboats not " having been launched since that date?"

It seems that there are at Great Yarmouth two lifeboats, a large one called the "Mark Lane," and a smaller, or surf boat, called the "Abraham Thomas"; the former, which requires a crew of 19 or 20 hands to man her, was used for going off to vessels on the outer sands, whilst the latter, which needs only about nine hands, was useful in rendering assistance to the crews of vessels thrown up on the beach. Both boats are furnished with the requisite number of oars to be used in case of need; but it seems to have been the practice always to work the larger boat, the "Mark Lane," with her sails, and to haul off the smaller or surf boat, the "Abraham Thomas," by a rope from the ship to the shore. The crews by which the boats were manned were formed out of the companies of beachmen, men well acquainted with the sands and shoals on this part of the coast, and with the set of the tides and currents. Formerly there were six companies of beachmen, with a total of 150 members; but of late years their numbers have greatly fallen off, so that there are now only three companies with from 8 to 10 members in each, or less than 30 beachmen altogether.

Various causes have contributed to this falling off in the number of the beachmen, one of which is the abolition of the system of "ferrying" as it is called. It seems to have been the practice formerly for all the fish which was brought to Yarmouth to be landed on the beach, and for this purpose boats were required to bring the fish from the smacks to the shore; this was called ferrying, and afforded a good deal of employment to the beachmen. Now, however, the practice seems to be for the smacks to enter the harbour at Gorleston, run alongside the quay, and discharge their fish directly into the railway trucks, whence they are sent to all parts of the kingdom. Some of the fish too is sent directly from the fishing grounds to the London markets; thus Mr. Hewitt, one of the largest fishing smack owners connected with Yarmouth, employs, we are told, two steamers to collect the fish from his fleet of smacks, and carry it straight to London. The result is that the system of "ferrying" has been almost totally abolished, and the emoluments of the beachmen in consequence greatly reduced.

Another cause of the diminution of the profits of the beachmen is the falling off in the number of salvage cases on this coast. I wish that I could say that this was due to the influence of the courts of inquiry, although no doubt they may have had some effect, but I think that the principal cause of the falling off in the number of salvage cases is the change in the character of the coasting trade between the northern and southern ports. Formerly this trade was carried on in small vessels, which used to run along inside the sands, so that in bad weather it was not at all uncommon to see many hundreds of these little vessels lying in the Yarmouth Roads. Now, however, this trade is carried on in large steamers, which run outside the sands, and never come near Yarmouth. Hence there are now much fewer wrecks and much fewer cases of salvage in this neighbourhood than there used to be, and a consequent falling off in the profits of the beachmen from this source. The men also say that, even when a salvage case does occur in the neighbourhood, they have no chance against the steam tugs, which can run in and out of Gorleston in almost all weathers and at any time of tide, and reach the wrecks before them. They also find that they are placed at a disadvantage with the lifeboats at Caister and at Gorleston to the north and south of them, for Gorleston has its steam tugs, which are available to tow them out at almost any time of tide, and Caister has a sandbank in the offing, which acts as a species of breakwater, so that they can launch their boats there when it is quite impossible for the Yarmouth boat to do so.

In addition to all this, we are told that the boats at both these places are generally able to reach the wrecks before the Yarmouth boat, owing to their having a better slant of wind; thus, if the wind is from the north, the Caister boat would have the wind nearly aft; if from the south, the Gorleston boat would get it, and if it is dead on shore, both have a fair wind, whilst the Yarmouth boat has to beat to windward to reach the wreck. That the men have some ground for their complaints is shown by the facts, which occurred on the two last occasions on which the "Mark Lane" went out, as reported in the log book of their proceedings. The former of these occasions was on the 4th of May 1880, when the "Mark Lane" went out to render assistance to a vessel called the "Pride of the Isles," which was ashore on the South Scroby Sand, and the entry of their proceedings is in these words: " When we got to the wreck we found the Gorleston lifeboat there upon the " South Scroby Sand. We hailed the lifeboat, and they answered they " required no assistance. They had taken the crew of the wreck out, and " we returned to our station, arriving at 3.15 a.m." The next and the last time on which the "Mark Lane" went out was the 4th January 1881, when she went out to a vessel the name of which is unknown, and the following is the entry: "On seeing signals going up from St. Nicholas lightship, they " put to sea, and went to St. Nicholas lightship, and were informed that a " vessel was on the Cross Sand making signals of distress. At this time " they saw two steam tugs with a boat in tow, and they burnt blue lights " for the tugs to come and tow them to the spot, but they took no notice, " but steamed on. At this time the wind was high, and the wind and tide " against them, so they were unable to reach the spot, and returned to the " station at 2.30 a.m." These were the two last occasions on which the "Mark Lane" went out, and it cannot be denied that it must have had a very depressing effect on the men to feel that they were always forestalled by boats from other places, and that, when they did go out, their services. were not required.

I now come to the 18th January 1881, when a lamentable accident occurred, by which no less than six of the beachmen were drowned. It seems that on that day three vessels came ashore on Yarmouth beach. The first of these was the "Rhoda," and her crew were saved by the rocket apparatus, the lifeboat not having then had time to get to the spot. Shortly afterwards a vessel called the "Manna de Ciel" came ashore, and a line was thrown to her by the rocket apparatus, and secured on board; at this time the "Abraham Thomas" surf boat was brought down, and her crew, having got hold of the line, hauled themselves out by it to the ship, and succeeded in rescuing the crew, and landing them in safety on the shore. Then a vessel called the "Guiding Star," of Padstow, came ashore, and, a communication having in the same way been effected by the rocket apparatus, the "Abraham Thomas" was again hauled out by the line, and the only man who was on board, was taken into the boat; in returning, however, to the shore, owing to the misdirected energy of the people on shore, the boat was upset, and six out of a crew of nine hands, as well as the man whom they had gone out to rescue, were drowned. A loss of six out of their already diminished number was a great blow to the beachmen, and although we are glad to hear that large subscriptions were raised for the widows and orphans of those who had perished, so that there has been no distress amongst them, the lamentable occurrence seems to have left a very painful feeling in the minds of their friends and comrades, the beachmen. Now it will be observed that in both the cases of the "Manna de Ciel" and the "Guiding Star" the lifeboat had been hauled out to the wrecks by means of the communication which had been effected by the rocket apparatus. This, it seems, was an old grievance between them, the coastguard, in whose charge the rocket apparatus is, and who receive from the Board of Trade a certain payment for every life saved by them, thinking, perhaps with some reason, that the beachmen have no right to possess themselves of the line of communication which they had established with the vessel, and thus deprive them of their expected remuneration. Accordingly, Mr. Dawson, the chief officer of coastguard at Yarmouth, complained of the beachmen's conduct in taking possession of their lines to haul themselves out to the vessels "Manna de Ciel" and "Guiding Star," and in consequence the Board of Trade sent down Captain Prowse, the Inspector of Life-saving Apparatus, to make inquiry into the circumstances. His report, which bears date the 5th of March, having been sent in, was referred to Captain Nepean, the Inspector of the National Lifeboat Institution for the district, who in a letter dated the 31st of the same month, to the National Lifeboat Institution, stated his view of the case. He says that the results at which Captain Prowse seemed to have arrived were, "first, that the lifeboat should not be launched until the rocket " apparatus has failed to obtain proper communication; and second, that " the lifeboat station should on such occasions be under the control of the " coastguard officer;" and Captain Nepean states that he "cannot agree " to either conclusion," and he proceeds to give a number of very good, and, in our opinion, very weighty reasons, why he does not agree with Captain Prowse's recommendations, and for which it may be better to refer to Captain Nepean's letter. In the meantime, however, the beachmen had got the impression, an impression for which, according to Captain Nepean, they seem to have had good ground, that they were to be put under the orders of the coastguard officer, at which they expressed the greatest dissatisfaction and stated that under these circumstances they would not again go out in the lifeboats.

These then are, it appears to us, the reasons why neither of the lifeboats has been out since the eventful 18th of January 1881, and why the "Mark Lane" did not go out on the 24th October and 14th November last, when the "Ariel" and the "Quayside" were in Yarmouth Roads signalling for assistance. Now the Court cannot but feel much sympathy for these poor beachmen; by a change of circumstances and the ordinary operations of trade, and not from any misconduct on their part, they have lost the means of earning their livelihood, and have been reduced to a state of comparative poverty; and they no doubt felt it hard that, after losing so many of their comrades by that unfortunate accident, for which they were in no way responsible, their conduct should be so severely censured, as it was, by an officer who they imagined would be disposed to take the part of his own men in a contest between them. They felt, too, and not unnaturally, that after their long experience in the management of these lifeboats, and with such a thorough knowledge, as they possessed, of the shoals and tides in the neighbourhood, it would be unjust to place them under the orders of the coastguard officer, who, whatever might be his merits, could hardly be supposed to have that practical knowledge of the locality which they had possessed. They felt that, if they had to act under the coastguard officer and to manage the boat in accordance with his orders, not only would they be put in a very false position, but possibly in one of considerable peril. The Court therefore is not disposed to pronounce any censure on the conduct of either William or Robert Hazlett, the coxswains, for not taking the boat out on the occasion in question; for they at any rate were quite willing to go out, could a crew have been found. We doubt, however, whether with their diminished numbers a sufficient number of beachmen could have been found to man the "Mark Lane," which was the only boat that would have been of any use on either of those occasions; for it seems that many of the men, owing to want of employment near the boat-house, have been obliged to go elsewhere, so that they are now widely scattered, and could not readily be got together. We are not therefore disposed to throw blame on the coxswains, or on the local committee or its officers, on account of the lifeboat not having gone out on the 24th of October or the 14th of November last to the "Ariel" or the "Quayside." It arose from circumstances for which it would be extremely difficult to hold them responsible.

The seventh question which we are asked is, "whether it is desirable " that both or either, and if so which, of such boats should be retained at " Yarmouth, and if so, who should have the charge and management of such " lifeboat or lifeboats?" A very strong feeling has been expressed by some of the witnesses, and amongst others by Canon Venables, the Rector of Yarmouth, against parting with the larger lifeboat, the "Mark Lane." They think that it is some reflection on the town that out of so large a fishing population they should not be able to get a sufficient number of men to man the lifeboats, and various suggestions have been made to us as to the way in which it could be done. We have no doubt that, if proper measures were adopted, a sufficient number of competent hands could be found amongst the Yarmouth fishermen to man both boats; but the question is, what is best to be done, looking at the lifeboat service generally on the coast. And it appears to us, seeing the little demand that there seems to be for the services of the large lifeboat from Yarmouth, and the greater facility with which wrecks on the outer sands can be reached by either the Caister or the Gorleston lifeboats, that the larger of the two lifeboats is no longer needed at Yarmouth, and that it may, as Captain Nepean recommends, be placed in the boat-house and be kept there until it is required for use at some of the other stations on the coast.

The case, however, is different as regards the smaller or surf boat. We were told by Mr. Dawson, the chief officer of coastguard at Yarmouth, that, although they can throw a line and establish a communication with a vessel at a distance of 300 to 350 yards from the shore they cannot undertake to land the people with the breeches buoy when the vessel is more than from 80 to 100 yards off. If then the vessel is between 100 and 300 yards off, a surf boat becomes extremely useful, for, having established a communication with the vessel, they can use the line for hauling the boat out to her; and this he told us that they had always been quite ready and willing to do; what they objected to was that their lines should be taken when the vessel was within 80 to 100 yards of the shore, and when the crew could be more quickly and easily saved by the breeches buoy. Captain Nepean was also of opinion, and we could hardly have a better authority, that it would be advisable that the rocket apparatus and the lifeboat should be in the same hands, and that, looking at all the facts, he thought that it would be best to place them under the management of the coastguard, if they could undertake to work them both. On this point also we have the evidence of Mr. Dawson, the chief officer of coastguard at Yarmouth, who told us that there are 12 coastguard men at Yarmouth; that of these four are necessary to throw the line, but that when the communication is once established two only are required to attend to the line, and that then the remainder would be able to work the lifeboat; and he stated that with his own men and the enrolled volunteers he thought that he could easily work both the rocket apparatus and the surf lifeboat. This being the case, the conclusion to which we have come is that it would be desirable to leave the smaller or surf lifeboat at Yarmouth, and in accordance with Captain Nepean's suggestion to place it in the charge of the chief coastguard officer, with a recommendation, however, that, if possible, he should employ such of the beachmen as chose to volunteer for the service, as there can be no doubt that their practical knowledge of the tides and currents would make them most useful assistants. Our duty, however, is only to recommend; it must rest with the Admiralty and the National Lifeboat Institution to carry the suggestion out, if they should think fit to do so.

Dated this 20th day of December 1882.

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above Report.

 

R. METHVEN,

 

 

C. VAUX, R.N.R.

Assessors.

 

JAMES KIDDLE, Capt. R.N.

 

LONDON:

Printed by GEORGE E. B. EYRE and WILLIAM SPOTTISWOODE, Printers to the Queen's most Excellent Majesty. For Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

[18469.—150.—1/83.]

R. 4988. G 10.