THE IRON BEAUTY.
The _London_ was the property of Messrs. Money Wigram & Co., the
eminent shipbrokers at Blackwall, to the extent of fifty-six shares,
Messrs. Franklin and Charles Morgan being owners of two shares each,
and Captain Martin, her Master, of four. She was a screw steam-ship,
and was built at Blackwall in 1864; she was therefore a new vessel.
She had two decks, three masts, was ship-rigged, and clincher-built.
She was 1752 tons register, and her engines, by Messrs. Humphreys and
Tennant of Deptford, were constructed on the most improved modern
principles: they were 200 horse power. Her length, from the fore part
of the stem, under the bowsprit, to the aft side of the head of the
stern post, was about 276 ft., and her main breadth to outside of plank
was about 35 ft.; her depth in hold, from tonnage deck to ceiling at
midships, was 24 feet.
The materials used in the construction of the vessel were all of
the best quality, and the best workmanship was used. The materials
were an angle iron frame, iron beams, stringer plates and kelsons.
She was double rivetted from keel to gunwale, and all her fastenings
were sound and good. Her masts were iron, with the exception of her
topmasts, which were of wood. Those who superintended the progress of
her building from the laying of her keel until the day of launching,
have spoken in terms of the most unqualified approbation of her entire
construction; and those who officially examined her before she put
to sea, reported her in the best trim, and having all the equipments
necessary for the voyage. Sails, compasses, boats, anchors, rockets,
signal guns, life buoys, in short, all that she was required to carry
to be officially pronounced seaworthy, the _London_ did carry; and,
previous to her last voyage, after undergoing a series of examinations,
she was said to be as fine a vessel as ever left the Port of London,
and she presented to the eyes of her admirers a perfect picture of
combined elegance and strength. She was built according to Lloyd’s
rules and regulations, and was indeed of greater strength than Lloyd’s
rules required.
On account of the melancholy disaster connected with them, the reader’s
attention must briefly be directed to the engine-room of the vessel,
and the hatchway over it. The engine-room was 36 ft. in length, and
on either side of it, fore and aft, were bulkheads, to one of which
there was a communication from the engine-room. Over the engine-room
went the hatchway, the dimensions of which were about 12 ft. by 9 ft.
The hatchway was a saddle skylight in a wooden frame, having plate
glass half an inch thick, and covered with gratings of galvanized iron.
According to the judgment of those who surveyed the ship, the engine
hatch was deemed of sufficient strength to meet any weather.
Such, then, was the vessel, which was no sooner advertised for her
third voyage, than all her berths were taken, and a valuable cargo got
on board. The accommodation for fore-cabin passengers was on the main
deck before the main hatchway. In this part of the ship there was space
for 130 in hammocks and 128 in berths, thus providing accommodation
for 258 persons. The accommodation for after-cabin passengers amounted
to 132 berths and space for 10 hammocks; thus taking 142 passengers.
Altogether the ship would carry 400 persons. From the shipping bills
of the _London_ we find that her cargo consisted of about 347 tons of
dead weight, viz. iron plates and bars, sheet iron, lead and shot,
stone, blocks, iron nails, and screws, &c.; there were also 14 tons
of hardware and agricultural implements, all of which would not be
probably considered dead weight. The remaining portion of the ship’s
cargo, amounting to about 1000 tons, consisted of light goods, packages
of haberdashery, blankets, woollens, china, glass ware, drugs--in
short, just such a cargo as was generally exported to Australia: this
was stowed over the dead weight, and in the after part of the ship. The
cargo of bar and sheet iron was stowed from the after part of the main
hatchway to the after part of the fore hatchway. The value of the cargo
was estimated at 124,785_l._ 17_s._ 4_d._
The weight of the cargo was, of course, increased by the coals which
the _London_ carried. The quantity of coals supplied to the vessel was
as follows:--remaining on board from the previous voyage, 45 tons;
shipped in London, 460 tons; making in all 505 tons. Of this there was
expended on the voyage to Plymouth 47 tons, leaving 458 tons. There was
shipped at Plymouth 50 tons; so that the weight of engine coals in the
ship when she left Plymouth was 508 tons. Several tons, however, were
on deck, stowed in sacks round the steam-chest and engine-room hatch,
and, during the storm that broke over the vessel, the coals were thrown
out of their sacks, and at every lurch of the ship they were either
washed overboard, or sent rolling in knubs near the scuppers.
The master and officers of the ship were as follows:--John Bohun
Martin, Master; Robert Harris, first mate; Arthur William Ticehurst,
second mate; Arthur C. Angell, third mate; John Jones, first engineer;
John Greenhill, second engineer. The Master, officers, and crew were
in number 83, and there were 15 foreigners among the seamen. The
foreigners were all rated as able seamen, and amongst them were 3
Germans, 5 Swedes, 2 Russians, 2 Danes, 1 Hollander, and 1 Bavarian. It
does not appear that any of the foreigners had sailed in the _London_
before, but eleven out of the number had previously sailed on board of
British ships.
The number of passengers that went on board in London was 125, and
these were increased to 180 by the embarkation of 55 at Plymouth. That
the _London_ stood very high in the estimation of all sea-goers, and
that her seaworthiness was above the faintest suspicion, is evident
from the number of those who tried to secure a passage out in her,
but without success, and from the reports and declarations which all
those who were officially responsible for her good trim made respecting
her. After a certain time there was not a berth in her to be obtained
on any terms, though many were disappointed at not being allowed to
obtain them: there was not a word of dissatisfaction, however slight,
expressed by any official after the strictest examination had been
made. Captain McLean, the Emigration Officer, who acts under the
authority of the Emigration Commissioners, had, after careful survey
and inspection, certified the _London_ to be in safe trim, and in all
respects fit for her intended voyage to Melbourne. His words were, “I
consider her perfect in every way.”
It would have been unnecessary to have appeared even to insist upon
the good trim and seaworthiness of the _London_, had not the suspicion
gained ground that much more might have been done for the passengers’
safety than actually was done. Some have thought that more boats ought
to have been on board; but it should be borne in mind that she carried
one more than was actually required by law, and that no ship carries a
sufficient number of boats to contain all on board, unless the number
of passengers happens to be very slight.
With reference to the length, breadth, and depth of the ship, a
suggestion has been thrown out as to her narrowness of beam for
a vessel of such length; but this alleged disproportion was not
peculiar to the _London_: it exists in a much greater degree in some
of the finest ships afloat. The length, for example, of Her Majesty’s
transport ship _Himalaya_ is 340 ft., while her breadth is only 44 ft.
7 in. The same might be noticed in the case of other steam-ships.
We have no doubt that eventually, out of the terrible calamity that all
must truly deplore, greater safety will accrue to the thousands who
sail the seas, through greater care being taken of every means that
concerns such safety, and that immediately some plan will be devised
for securing the engine-room of steam-ships against inundation.
Meanwhile the matter will not be mended by any unfair criticism of the
ship’s sea-going qualities. It will only increase unavailing regrets,
to array what might have been against what actually is. It is a fact,
patent to all, that the _London_ enjoyed a first-rate reputation as a
fast ship, as a most comfortable one, and as having in her commander,
Captain John Bohun Martin, a gentleman of the highest repute, both for
his seamanship and many other admirable qualities.
All being in readiness, the _London_ left the East-India Docks on
the 29th of December 1865, laden as we have described, and bound for
Melbourne. Many were those who caught a view of her from various points
as she steamed majestically down the river, and fervently wished her
a prosperous voyage as they remembered that she contained on board
something far more precious than all her cargo, rich though it was.
At Gravesend she embarked several passengers, and lunch was prepared
on board, that those who were about to separate, they knew not for how
long, might enjoy as much of each other’s society as possible. It was a
pleasant party, notwithstanding the tears that started involuntarily
from many eyes as the hour of separation drew near. One affecting
incident deserves to be recorded. A gentleman was obliged to send his
little boy out, and remain behind himself. The child was to have gone
by a former ship, but he had prevailed upon his father to allow him to
wait for him; and now, after all, that dear father could not go until
the next ship, and the little one was going out under the care of a
friend. The father of the child was present, and watched the vessel
until she seemed to die away in the glory of the setting sun.
Innumerable, doubtless, now are the kind words and looks which are
recalled by mourning friends as so many fond souvenirs of that last
parting at Gravesend or at Plymouth. The sun was going down, and
tinging with lustre the Kentish hills, wintry though the weather
was, when the _London_ left Gravesend behind, and went on her way
to Plymouth. This very night, however, she encountered weather that
compelled her to bring up at the Nore, where she anchored and remained
during the whole of Sunday.
On Monday morning, the 1st of January, at daybreak, the anchor was
weighed, and the ship steamed down the channel, still against a head
wind, but making fair way. While passing outside the Isle of Wight the
wind increased to half a gale, and Captain Martin deemed it prudent
to put back and lay-to for the night in St. Helen’s Road. On Tuesday
morning, the 2nd, the _London_ proceeded through the Needles into the
open channel, the wind being still ahead, but light. On the Wednesday
the weather became so boisterous, and the indications of the barometer
so threatening, that, at about 2 o’clock P.M., the Trinity House
pilot, under whose care she was, decided on taking her to Spithead for
shelter. She anchored on the Motherbank at 4 P.M., and lay there until
daylight of the 4th, when she steamed out through the Needles passage,
the wind being then southwesterly.
She arrived off Plymouth at daylight of the 5th. A sad accident
occurred here. A pilot cutter put off a small boat, having on board the
pilot and his assistant, to bring the _London_ inside the breakwater.
When the boat was no more than a hundred yards from the _London_ a sea
capsized her, and both the pilot and his assistant were thrown into
the water. Captain Martin instantly ordered one of his lifeboats to be
lowered, and with great difficulty the assistant pilot was rescued,
but the pilot was drowned. About two hours after daylight of the 5th
the _London_ was anchored inside the breakwater, and prepared at once
to embark her passengers. Some of those passengers must now engage our
attention for a little while.
[Illustration]