|
The Story of HMS Captain (cont) |
||
|
|
The Times - comment from Letters and Editorials Everyone seemed to have an opinion on how and what happened, with the letters being written in the civilised style of the time, with many of them being verbose and extremely long. Generally they took one of two sides - you were either a supporter of Coles and against Reed's ideas; or the other way around. The relevant Times editorials have been included here, because they do try to provide a balanced view of the contradictory letters. _______________ Wednesday 14th September 1870 - someone signing themselves as "B", in a letter dated 11th September, who asks "as one of Cowper Coles's truest admirers to pay (his) last brief tribute to him". This "brief" tribute (around one thousand words) is very much on the lines of Coles being a misunderstood genius, and is far from critical. It does have the surprising statement, however, that Coles "could not account for more than 170 of the 800 tons which was in excess of the calculated weight" (of the Captain). Enclosed with B's letter is a letter he had received from Coles, written between August 11th and 14th from on Board the Captain, and is described by B as "will be read with a melancholy interest, from the graphic account of his ship's performance, the touches of the writer's character which appear in it, and the statement it contains of his views and anticipation for the future". Even longer than B's letter, it is a letter written by a man very content over the performance of the ship he designed. And, it has to be said, at that stage he seems to be entitled to those thoughts. _______________ Captain Sherard Osborne also had a letter that day, dated September 13th. Osborne is described by Hawkey as a close friend of both Burgoyne and Coles; indeed, Coles named one of his sons Sherard Cowper-Coles. The letter fundamentally complains of the "desire of our Admiralty to make all their fighting ships cruise under canvas as well as steam inducing poor Captain Coles to go a step further and to make a ship with low freeboard a sailing ship". He does imply, however that Coles himself attached importance "to the value of lots of masts, sails and top hamper, useless to her as a fighting ship". Osborne states that he, Burgoyne and Coles had unanimously agreed that "if caught in bad weather (it was necessary) to furl all sails and bring the ship under steam, with her bow to the sea". Osborne finishes with a dig at Reed and the Constructor's Department at the Admiralty for ignoring Coles's first design, and "building instead an oddity like the Monarch". ______________ Thursday 15th September 1870 - Rear Admiral E A Inglefield, who had been a member of the Committee of Captains set up in the Crimean War to report on Coles' invention, in a thoughtful letter, repeats his previously expressed opinion of the danger if the then low-freeboard turret ships would be in if thrown on their beam-ends. He summarises the difficulties of balancing the problems of low-freeboards with the need for a full set of sails; of the problems of a full set of sails in a battle situation; that a hurricane deck is needed on low-freeboard ships, but unnecessary on high freeboard ships; how a high freeboard, although safer, offers a greater target for enemy ships. His suggestions include removable freeboard height for going into battle; that the watertight partitions should be used to take on water to lower the freeboard when going into battle; and perhaps the ability to lower to the lowest altitude with ease and expedition, again when going into battle. ________________ Friday 16th September 1870 - two letters from people who had close relatives on the ship. The first, from F C Hingeston-Randolph, who had lost a near relative, wrote despairing that a ship such as Captain should ever have been allowed away from the safety of our coast and harbours. The second, from E May, the brother of the survivor, gunner James May. This outlines his naval career and points out that James May had twice been awarded medals from the Royal Humane Society for two incidents of saving people from drowning. _______________ Saturday 17th September 1870 - one extract from a private letter from an officer on an un-named of ship of the Channel Fleet, probably the flagship Lord Warden, describing the events of the night. A further letter from Staff Commander W W Kiddle on the Minotaur giving full positional and meteorological details on the late evening and early morning of the disaster. And three letters, from Captain Sherard Coles, John Laird (of the shipbuilders) and the Assistant Curate of St Paul's, London, all encouraging people to donate to the Relief Fund - see elsewhere. _______________ Tuesday 20th September 1870 - G. Featherstone Griffin, C.E. wrote to say he had "been surprised to observe that no sort of suggestion has been made to raise the ship and the poor dead bodies to the surface..........I would suggest that immediate steps be taken to mark the spot." "A SHIPBUILDER" wrote "The Captain drew two feet more water than her calculated draught, owing to an error in estimating the weights of hull and equipment, to the extent of 800 tons. A mistake of such magnitude must necessarily have vitiated all the calculations of her builders, and it was on the correctness of those calculations that the most vital element of her safety - stability - depended." He suggests the Admiralty check this before condemning the ship design as the error could be a blunder rather than an inherent defect". _______________ Wednesday 21st September 1870 - a letter signed "L" supports the last letter, saying that a report on the Captain and her problems was already available to the Admiralty. A further letter from Siebe & Gorman, Submarine engineers, takes up the point about raising the Captain, pointing out that although a ship of that weight could be raised, the limit for divers was around 25 fathoms, and if it was deeper than that "we may consider her hopelessly lost". (It is believed to be around one mile down - Ed.) _______________ Friday 23rd September to Thursday 29th September 1870 - during this period an important sequence of letters and editorials took place involving, on the one hand E J Reed, on the other Admiral George Elliot, with The Times giving the balance to opposing views. (click on links to read summaries of letters) On Friday 23rd, two items were published - firstly a very long letter from Admiral Elliot, a self-confessed friend of Coles and supporter of his opinions about sea-going turret-ships. A somewhat rambling letter, described by The Times as "not clear and intelligible". On the same day, The Times carries a report of a talk given by E J Reed to the Mechanical Section of the British Association at which he outlined his previously published doubts about low-freeboard turret ships. On Monday 26th September, The Times attempted to make sense from the two opposing views. Wednesday 28th September saw Admiral Elliot writing another long letter, defending Coles and attacking Reed. Thursday 29th September, and Reed responded initially to Elliot's first letter, saying (briefly) he was more open minded now about freeboard height, and was certainly a supporter of turret guns. Then he saw Elliot's second letter, and in a reply which must have brought wry smiles in the clubs of London, politely implied that the letter did not deserve an answer, that Elliot should know the rules of courtesy, that Elliot also showed questionable taste, and he (Reed) declined to imitate his example by personally making the loss of the Captain the occasion of anything narrow or personal. He then says if Elliot knew beforehand the problems of the Captain, why did he not join Reed in saying so; if he didn't, how come he proclaims them so loudly now? _______________ Saturday 24th September - back away from the Reed/Elliot differences of opinion, Henry Bessemer, a confessed non-professional man, had been putting some thought into the question of stability and centre of gravity. He makes the intriguing suggestion that "slotted into the underside of the ship along the keel, should be a slab of cast iron, approximately three feet square and fifty feet long, weighing (he says) one hundred tons. When needed to provide additional stability/lowered centre of gravity, it would be lowered by hydraulic rams to about ten or twelve feet below the keel." _______________ Monday 26th September - Letter from Captain J E Commerell of HMS Monarch, who had been asked to stay in the area of Corcubion for a week to search for further survivors. Also on this date, a letter from someone signing himself "A POST CAPTAIN", stating he knew it was Coles' intention to construct a ship of even lower freeboard than Captain, with masts, which would outperform the American Navy Department's Dictator - a mastless ship with just one foot of freeboard. _______________ Thursday 29th September – in a long and technical letter, Rear-Admiral E Gardener Fishbourne argued that, although the Monarch had a higher freeboard the Captain, it was covered in plating, and the end result was that Captain was no less stable than Monarch. He adds that no seagoing ship should be without sails, and, furthermore, that the greater the breadth of a ship, the more likely it would suffer from the leverage effect of a side-on wave; the greater the weight of ironclads would increase the problem due to the fly-wheel effect. He went on to quote Captain Jansen of the Dutch Navy, saying that they had employed low-freeboard ships for 200 years, as their ships of this type had small breadth and low centre of gravity. Gardener Fishbourne then says that a high centre of gravity would not make a capsizing tendency; but the subsequent loss of leverage to resist inclination would mean the greater the effect of any upsetting force. He then makes the point that no ship should be at risk of capsizing when carrying little or no sail. "The cause of her loss" he goes on, "I have no doubt, was the defect which seems to have had in common with other vessels of her class and kind. Her centre of gravity was far too high for safety." He finishes by asking that "we profit by the lesson, and give practical proof of our sympathy by assisting the widow and the orphan, the infirm and dependent parents of the lost." _______________ Thursday 6th October 1870 – a letter from "AN ENGINEER" points out that it is the practice of engineers to construct models of their invention to check their theoretical opinions are supported by practical experience, but that naval engineers do not do so. He suggests the construction of a models of Captain and Monarch to remove all doubt about their safety under all conditions. He also suggest that the Captain, 900 feet deep, should be raised, the cost of doing so being less than its original value, and the remains of those lost could be buried properly at home. _______________ Wednesday 19th October 1870 - in a long and reasoned letter, someone signing themselves as "BAY OF BISCAY" goes into some detail about the dangers of excessive inclination on the Captain, making two interesting quotes as he does so. The first is from Henry Laird, of the shipbuilders - "..the angle of permanent heel...... should not be more than eight or nine degrees" and "not on any occasion be permanently inclined to the gunwhale". The second is quoting Admiral Milne on his visit to the Captain the day before she sank, whilst watching the sea washing over he deck and striking the turret to a depth of 18in to 2 feet - "I cannot reconcile myself to this state of things, so very unusual in my experience.". On the same day, someone signing themselves as W. L. G. expresses concern that in Pembroke Dockyard is a half built ship, the Thunderer, which, he was told, was being built the same as the Captain. "Is it the intention of Government to persist in squandering the public money by completing another ship....which is certain to be capsized in any ordinary gale?" __________ And so the letters continued - at the point of writing this page, they have been read to the end of 1870, and the intention is, in due course, to see if there is anything of interest after this date. One letter from Admiral H J Rous, making post-Court Martial comments, which I have not located, was re-published in The Mariner's Mirror, and this can be found in the `Other Publications' section of this web-site.
|
|
HMS Captain
1870
