The following is a detailed account of the loss of the Plymouth bark
Charles Bartlett, which on the 27th of June, 1849, was run down and
sunk by the Cunard steamship Europa. The incidents attending the
disaster possess an interest in themselves, while the trial in the
English law courts of a suit for damages brought by the owners of the
bark in the early days of ocean steam navigation, was an important
one, establishing as it did the duties of steam navigators and their
liability in damages for a failure to perform them.
The Charles Bartlett was a bark of four hundred tons, built in
Westbrook, Maine, and owned by Wm. L. Finney and others of Plymouth.
She left the Downs on the 14th of June, 1849, bound for New York with
a cargo of about four hundred and fifty tons of iron, lead, etc.,
and with one cabin passenger and one hundred and sixty-two in the
steerage. Her officers and crew were William Bartlett of Plymouth,
Captain; Thomas Parker of Charleston, S. C., first officer; Wm.
Prince, second officer, and George Parsons of Portland, Me., Wm.
Rich of Gravesend, England, Isaac Hanson, James Fraser, John Bell,
Joshua Carey, Levi Hunt, Wm. Perry, John Jordan, John Jackson and
Harrison D. White, seamen. On the 27th of June, in latitude 50.48
N., longitude 29 W., in a thick fog, which gathered after the noon
observation had been taken, the bark was heading northwest with the
wind west by south, close hauled and all sails set. At half-past
three the captain, who was standing on the weather side of the poop
deck, caught sight of the steamship about one point forward of the
beam, and about four hundred yards distant. He ordered his helm up
and shouted to the steamer to port her helm. The officer of the deck
on the Europa, however, ordered his helm put to starboard, which
order was countermanded before the wheel had been turned one round.
If the starboard helm had produced any effect, it was of course to
make a collision the more sure, while if the helm had been at first
promptly put to port there is room for doubt whether, as the bark
was all the time going ahead, the steamer might not have slipped
by her stern without causing serious damage. As it was, the Europa
going at twelve and a half knots, struck the bark abreast of her main
shrouds in one minute after she was first seen, and three minutes
later the bark went down. The steamer’s bow entered to within a foot
of the after hatch, tearing away twenty feet of the bark’s side,
and suffering as her own damage only the loss of her head knees and
her foretopmast. At the moment of the collision, about one hundred
passengers were on deck, and it was estimated that about one half of
them were killed by the impact. The captain and second officer and
nine of the crew and thirty passengers were saved, all but ten of
whom, who were picked up by boats, were saved by clinging to the bows
of the steamer, and climbing on board.
The Europa had a full passenger list, and the excitement caused
by the terrible scenes of the collision was followed by a serious
anxiety for the safety of their own vessel, which only prompt
investigations and the assurance of the officers that the hull was
uninjured could allay. Among the passengers was Capt. Robert B.
Forbes of Boston, who with that generous impulse and heroic courage
which had always characterized him risked his life by leaping
into the sea and aided in the rescue of his drowning fellow men.
For the service rendered by him, a medal was presented to him by
the Liverpool Shipwreck and Humane Society, and another by the
Massachusetts Humane Society. The Cunard Steamship Company gave
twenty pounds toward the relief of the survivors of the Charles
Bartlett, and a free passage to America.
A suit was brought by the owners and underwriters to recover damages
estimated at twelve thousand pounds, and tried in the English
Admiralty Court, and the facts which I have stated were presented to
the court by the plaintiffs. The responsive allegation in behalf of
the Europa, claimed that the collision occurred in the usual track
for steamers, but that it was two or three degrees to the north
of the usual track of sailing vessels. It denied that there was a
concentrating point in the Atlantic, and alleged that the noise of
the paddle wheels might have been heard in the direction of the bark
three or four miles, and that it was owing to some negligence that
the bark was not therefore warned of the approach of the steamer. It
further alleged that though the third officer ordered the helm to be
starboarded, before the order could be obeyed the order was revoked,
and the wheel was directed to be put hard a port. The engines were
stopped so that before the collision the steamer had come up to the
wind a point and a half. It was still further alleged that the bark
was going from five and a half to six knots an hour, having all
possible sails set, and had neglected to fire guns, blow her fog
horn or ring her bell at short intervals, so that those on board the
steamer could be cognizant of her approach.
The presiding judge, addressing his brethren of the Court, said that
these cases are becoming so numerous that it was for the interest
of the owners of ships that they should be decided promptly. With
regard to the burden of proof, it is of course necessary for the
plaintiff to present all the evidence reasonably within his power,
but that after he has done that it rests upon the other party to show
that they have not been guilty of the acts attributed to them. With
regard to the distance at which the vessels were seen by each other,
and the time which elapsed before the collision, nothing is more
difficult than to find consistent evidence. The conclusion of the
allegation in defense is in substance that the collision was either
the result of inevitable accident, or was the fault of those on board
the Charles Bartlett. What is an inevitable accident? Inevitable
must be considered as a variable term, and must be construed with
regard to the circumstances of each case. In almost every case it
is possible to avoid a collision by going at a slow pace, or lying
to during a fog, but the import of the words “inevitable accident”
is this, where a man is pursuing his lawful vocation in a lawful
manner, and something occurs which no ordinary caution could prevent.
Continuing, the presiding Judge said to his brethren of the Court,
“It is very easy to define what is a lawful vocation, but it is not
so easy to say what is a lawful manner. The test is the probability
of injury to others, and that of course depends on circumstances, as
for instance the time and locality where the occurrences take place.
The object of our inquiry is whether in the case of the Europa going
about twelve and a half knots an hour in so dense a fog that she
could not see beyond one hundred and fifty or two hundred yards, and
in latitude 50.48 and longitude 29, there was more than ordinary
probability of meeting vessels. If there was a reasonable probability
of a collision, then beyond all doubt she would be to blame. If,
however, there was no reasonable probability of meeting vessels in
the track pursued, she was nevertheless bound to take all necessary
precautions to insure safety. One of the most important questions as
to these precautions which we are to decide, is whether there was or
was not a sufficient lookout on board the Europa. The law undoubtedly
requires as a reasonable lookout the most ample that could be
adopted. Was there such a lookout on board the steamer? According to
the evidence the general practice on the Europa in dense fogs was as
follows: first to station an officer on the foremost bridge; second,
his junior at the Con; third, a quartermaster at the wheel; fourth,
a second hand in the wheelhouse, and fifth and sixth, two lookouts
on the topgallant forecastle. There is some evidence also tending
to show that a man was stationed in case of a fog on the lee side
of the bridge, and also a man at the crank to convey orders to the
engine room. Now, the actual watch when the collision occurred was as
follows: Wardell, the second officer, was on the bridge; Coates, a
quartermaster, on the topgallant forecastle; White, at the wheel, and
Fern, another quartermaster, at the Con, and I do not find any other
person on the lookout. The second man is placed at the wheel so that
in case of necessity it may be turned as promptly as possible. There
is an entire absence of evidence as to whether at the time of the
collision there was in operation any means of communicating orders
to the engine room, or whether any orders were really communicated.”
Continuing, the presiding Judge said: “You will have to decide also
whether there was more than one man at the wheel, and lastly, whether
the order to starboard the helm, which is agreed on all hands to
have been erroneous, did or did not produce any effect in the case.
Looking at the rapidity with which the vessels were approaching each
other, the last mentioned consideration is one of importance.”
With regard to the Charles Bartlett the Judge said, “Was she carrying
too much sail; was there a want of a sufficient look-out, and above
all is it your opinion that she ought to have sounded a fog horn or
rung a bell? Whether she ought to have heard the paddle wheels before
she did, and neglected to take measures to avert a collision, is one
of the questions for you to decide. But it is in evidence that even
if she could have heard them, no fog horn could have been heard on
board the steamer above the sound of the paddles.”
The Court retired, and returning at the end of half an hour, Dr.
Lushington, the presiding Judge, then said: “In conjunction with the
gentlemen by whom I am assisted, we have considered all the points
in this case, which I have suggested as necessary to be determined,
and I trust that there has been no omission as to any one of them. We
have come unanimously to the following determination: That no rate
of sailing by steamers or other vessels can be said to be absolutely
dangerous; but whether any given rate is dangerous or not, must
depend on the circumstances of each individual case, as the state
of the weather, locality and other similar facts. That the rate
of twelve and a half knots an hour in a dense fog in the locality
where this occurrence took place, must be attended with more risk
than a slower pace; but assuming that it might be accomplished with
reasonable security, and without probable risk to other vessels,
such rate of going could not be maintained with such security,
except by taking every possible precaution against collision. That
proper precaution was not taken by the Europa: First, she had not a
sufficient look-out; second, we think that no proper arrangement was
made as to the engines; third, because no person was placed to report
to the engineers the orders as to the engines; fourth, because no
second person was placed in the wheel house; fifth, that the order
to starboard the helm was erroneous. We are of the opinion that if
proper precautions had been adopted, the accident might have been
avoided, and that the collision took place for want of the proper
precautions. With respect to the Charles Bartlett, we are of opinion
that a good look-out was kept on board; that she discovered the
approach of the Europa as soon as circumstances would permit; that
she adopted all proper measures to avoid the collision by ringing
the bell and putting the helm to port. Therefore, I must pronounce
against the Europa in this case.”
After the decision of the Court was read, Mr. Rothery, the proctor
for the Europa, gave notice of appeal. All appeals from the Admiralty
Court, which until the time of William 4th were made to the High
Court of Admiralty, are now made to the King in council, and are
referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which
committee is composed of the Chief Justice of the Court of King’s
Bench, the Master of the Rolls, the Vice Chancellor of England,
and other ex-officio officers. The appeal in question was heard by
Lord Justice Cranworth, Lord Justice Sir James Knight Bruce, Sir
Herbert Jenner Fust, and Sir Edward Ryan, and judgment was delivered
by Lord Justice Cranworth, December 1, 1851. It is unnecessary to
relate the grounds of the judgment of the committee, as they were
for the most part the same as those which entered into the decision
of the Admiralty Court. There is one part, however, to which I wish
to refer, because it lays down a rule for the guidance of ocean
steam navigators, broader and more exacting than any suggested
by the Admiralty Court. An important question in the examination
of witnesses was whether it would have been possible to stop the
steamer, or so far stop her as to enable her to get out of the way
within the distance between the two vessels when they were first seen
by each other. The preponderance of testimony was that she could not
if going twelve and a half knots an hour. The peculiarity of this
question is that an answer either in the affirmative or negative
would bear against the Europa. If she could get out of the way and
did not, she is to blame. If she could not get out of the way, the
committee say that “it follows as an inevitable consequence that she
was sailing at a rate of speed at which it was not lawful for her to
navigate.” The judgment closes as follows: “Their lordships have come
to the opinion that the accident was without default on the part of
the Charles Bartlett and was through the neglect of the Europa. The
consequences will be that the appeal will be dismissed with costs.”
In closing the narrative of this important case it is pleasant to
remember the enconiums of the London press on the intelligence and
general demeanor of our late townsman, Capt. William Bartlett,
as displayed by him during the trial. The master mariners of New
England were fortunate in having in a foreign land so worthy a
representative.