The Princess Alice Disaster

by Joan Lock

  At 4.30 a.m. Carttar was called in to help them draft a verdict agreed by a majority of fifteen, the foreman and three others refusing to sign the document. At 7 a.m. the doors were thrown open and the verdict issued:

  That the death of the said William Beachey and others was occasioned by drowning in the waters of the River Thames from a collision that occurred after sunset between a steam vessel called the Bywell Castle and a steam vessel called the Princess Alice whereby the Princess Alice was cut in two and sunk, such collision not being wilful; that the Bywell Castle did not take the necessary precaution of easing, stopping and reversing her engines in time and that the Princess Alice contributed to the collision by not stopping and going astern; that all collisions in the opinion of the jury might in future be avoided if proper and stringent rules and regulations were laid down for all steam navigation on the River Thames.

  Addenda

  We consider that the Princess Alice was, on the third of September, seaworthy.

  We think the Princess Alice was not properly and sufficiently manned.

  We think the number of persons onboard the Princess Alice was more than prudent.

  We think the means of saving life onboard the Princess Alice were insufficient for a vessel of her class.9

  Newspapers were then the only means of rapidly dispensing news to the public and had been the sole arena on which this drama had been played out. Now one of the most prominent and respected, The Times, which had thoroughly recorded the proceedings throughout, gave its opinion on the inquest conclusions on Friday 15 November 1878:

  The verdict of the coroner’s jury, which we print below, cannot be regarded with unmixed satisfaction. Where it endorses our remarks made on Tuesday as to the desirability of providing better life-saving apparatus on river steamers than was carried by the Princess Alice, and, as to the doubtful expediency of allowing nearly 1,000 lives to be risked in one river steamer of only ordinary strength and buoyancy, we, at least, cannot quarrel with the conclusions. The discrepancy between the report of the Board of Trade Court and the jury is nevertheless to be regretted. We are informed that at one time eleven of the jury were in favour of bringing in a verdict of manslaughter against those in charge of the Bywell Castle.

  (The Board of Trade Inquiry had reported earlier in the week, see Chapter Nineteen.) The following day The Times published a letter addressed to the coroner from Mr Harrington, the inquest jury foreman, a copy of which he had sent to the newspaper.

  In it, he (and, purportedly, his jury) thanked everyone concerned with the inquest and inquiry: the Local Board of Health; Assistant Commissary-General Barrington, for use of the dockyard; Assistant Commissary-General Long, for use of his ambulances; the London Steamboat Company, for use of their steamers for transporting bodies; R and R Division of the Metropolitan Police and the Dockyard Division,10 for work of the most arduous and trying nature, and Inspectors Phillips and Dawkins, for not only arduous and trying but harrowing and loathsome work; and, last but not least, your officer, Gilham. And so it went on: General Officer Commanding, Cavalry, Artillery … Army Service Hospital Corps, the Harbour Master … and Uncle Tom Cobley and all. Not forgetting the coroner himself:

  We cannot, Mr Coroner, leave your court without expressing the deep sense which we entertained of the great judgement, intelligence, courtesy, and patience with which you have conducted this lengthy investigation, and rendering you our sincere thanks for the valuable assistance you have afforded us throughout this inquiry, which we cannot but believe to have been, from the immense loss of life and the questions involved in it, the most important coroner’s inquisition ever held in this country.

  In leaving you we can only say, however much many of the jury may have suffered in their business affairs, and the by no means small expense we have been put to by attending this inquiry, we shall not look upon it either as a labour thrown away or money lost if from it shall arise some definite and precise rules as to the proper navigation of the River Thames.

  I remain your obedient servant,

  S.C. Harrington, Foreman of Jury

  This was an appalling piece of impertinence (any thanking should have and was to come from the coroner himself). Following it on the page was another letter to the editor:

  Sir, I took passage today from Charlton Pier11 to Woolwich Town Pier by the London Steamboat Company’s steamer Osprey. At 12.10 we met the North German steamer and there was not a soul on the topgallant12 forecastle. At 12.13 we met the screw steamer Ridge Park without any lookout on the topgallant forecastle; and at 12.15 we were passed by one of the Trinity Corporation steamers with no one on the forecastle, but two men were close to the foremast securing buoys on decks. I drew the attention of Captain Jones and his mate to these facts, to show how little attention is paid to the law.

  Your obedient servant,

  S.C. HARRINGTON, Foreman of the Coroner’s Jury on the Princess Alice Disaster

  He was not yet finished. On the final day of the inquest, Wednesday 27 November 1878, as thanks were being handed out to the jury from the coroner and to the coroner from the jury and to everyone else who had lent a hand, Harrington complained that the jury had been subjected to unfair comments from the newspapers.

  It had been said that they held saturnalia on the night they were considering their verdict and that quantities of wine and spirits had been brought into the jury room. He wished publicly to say that this statement was absolutely unfounded. It was true that the jury had smoked, but he was not aware that their deliberations suffered either in dignity or thoroughness on that account. During the greater part of the night there were festivities in an adjoining room, and he had several times been obliged, through the medium of the coroner’s officer, to request the company there to make less noise.

  One juror inquired whether they were entitled to any fees and Carttar replied that none had been given in the Staunton case, where the inquest had lasted seventeen days, and it was now the practice of all counties but Surrey not to pay fees. However, considering the unprecedented character of this inquiry, he thought an exception might be made if they drew up an application to that effect. He would certainly support it. Captain Pim said he would bring it up in Parliament as soon as possible.

  Carttar said, with regard to the matter complained of by the foreman, he could testify that their conduct while considering the verdict had been perfectly proper and throughout the inquiry they had acquitted themselves most creditably.

  On that final day of proceedings those jury members who had agreed with the verdict signed the 24 ft long roll of parchment that contained the names of the 518 deceased persons. It now sits among the inquest records in the London Metropolitan Archive.

  Among Carttar’s papers were found these anonymous verses to be sung to the tune of ‘Lord Lovell’:

  The foreman stood at the town hall door

  Smoking a twopenny weed,

  When up came the jury and softly said:

  ‘You naughty old man, take heed.’

  You naughty old man, etc.

  ‘Oh, when will you stop, old man’ they said.

  ‘Oh, when will you stop,’ said they.

  ‘When I’ve asked 50,000 more

  Of the silliest questions, hi, hi.’

  Of the silliest questions, etc.

  He talked and he jawed in his grizzling way

  Till he couldn’t jaw any more,

  And then the jury boiled him down

  And gave him away to the poor.

  And gave him away, etc.

  Twelve bodies remained unidentified at Woolwich, bringing the total to 530. At the end of the year the registrar general’s return of births and deaths put the total due to drowning at 574, which included forty-seven from Barking, Poplar, Mile End Old Town and Westminster. Of these 228 were males and 346 females. This did not include those who had died after rescue.

  Judging by the number of inquiries addressed to him by the relatives of missing persons, The Times reported,
‘the coroner believes that there are from sixty to eighty bodies unrecovered from the river. Thus, the total number of lives lost must have been from 630 to 650’.13 The final number was never settled upon.

  Notes

  1. The Times, 19 October 1878.

  2. Ibid.

  3. Ibid.

  4. Ibid.

  5. The Times, 30 October 1878 and Gavin Thurston, The Great Thames Disaster, p.122.

  6. (Carttar’s summing up): The Times, 14 November 1878.

  7. Unidentified press cutting in Coroners’ Records COR/PA/45 and Gavin Thurston, The Great Thames Disaster, p.147.

  8. The Times, 14 November 1878.

  9. The Times, 15 November 1878.

  10. Woolwich and several other dockyards both in London and the provinces were guarded by the Metropolitan Police.

  11. Charlton Pier is a couple of miles upriver from Woolwich.

  12. The topgallant is above the topmast and topsail and below the Royal mast.

  13. The Times, 28 November 1878.

  CHAPTER NINETEEN

  Hisses in Court

  The proceedings of the Board of Trade inquiry were to yield one or two surprises and revelations, not to mention some startling accusations, despite the fact that many of the witnesses were those who had already given evidence at the protracted inquest.

  The inquiry began on 14 October 1878, and was held at the Board of Trade Court in Poplar before stipendiary magistrate Mr Balguy and three naval assessors: Captain Forster, RN, Captain Parfitt and Mr Ravenhill, a nautical engineer.

  The aims were to ascertain: the cause of the accident; whether any of the certified officers were culpable; whether alterations in the Thames rules of navigation were necessary; what caused the great loss of life; and whether there should be any alteration in the conditions for granting passenger certificates.

  Specific charges had been laid against Captain Thomas Harrison and the Bywell Castle’s engineers, Henry Dimelow and Robert Thom, and the first mate of the Princess Alice, George Thomas Long. Given that Captain Grinstead was not alive to answer any charges, Long was the only one representing that ship. The charges read:

  Against Thomas Harrison, the master of the Bywell Castle:

  That he neglected to set and keep a good and efficient lookout and to see that a good lookout was kept onboard the said steamship, Bywell Castle.

  That being on the bridge and in charge of the Bywell Castle he failed to see the lights of the Princess Alice as soon as they were visible.

  That seeing collision was inevitable he did not stop and reverse his engines in time.

  Against Henry Dimelow, first engineer of the Bywell Castle:

  That while the Bywell Castle was navigating the River Thames and it was his duty to have charge of the engines of the Bywell Castle he left and gave up charge of the engines; that he called up all hands on deck and left the engines without any competent person in charge of them, whereby the orders of the person navigating the Bywell Castle to the engineer were not and could not be carried out.

  Against Robert Thom, second engineer of the Bywell Castle:

  That being left in charge of the engines of the Bywell Castle, he neglected to observe and neglected and failed to carry out an order given by the person in charge of the ship, to go astern full speed prior to the collision between that ship and the Princess Alice.

  Against George Thomas Long for that being first mate of the steamship Princess Alice on the 3rd day of September, 1878, he caused or contributed to the loss of the said steamship and great loss of life by his wrongful acts and default as follows:

  That he neglected to station anyone on the lookout.

  That he neglected to see that an efficient lookout was kept, and that ship’s lights were properly reported.

  That being on the lookout he sighted but neglected to report the lights of the Bywell Castle as soon as they were visible to him.

  That he did not report the Bywell Castle’s lights to the captain of the Princess Alice.

  That he neglected to pass the report of the Bywell Castle’s lights from the lookout station forward to the captain on the bridge.

  The certificates of all the men were suspended.

  The history and descriptions of both vessels were read out by the Board of Trade solicitor Mr Mansel Jones:

  Princess Alice:

  Length: 219 ft 4 in over all. Breadth 20 ft 2 in. Depth of hold: 8 ft 4 in. Carried four boats, two of which were lifeboats.

  1863 built by Mr Caird of Greenock. First known by the name of Bute.

  1866 became the property of what was then the Woolwich Steamship Company.

  1870 an intercostal stringer placed in the boiler room and the whole of the boiler bearers taken out.

  1878 surveyed by a Board of Trade surveyor who made declarations on which her two certificates were issued, one of which allowed her to carry 936 passengers in smooth water from London to Gravesend.

  Bywell Castle:

  Tonnage: 891 tons. Length: 254 ft 2 in. Breadth: 32 ft. Depth of hold: 19 ft.

  1870 Iron screw ship built at Newcastle. Owned by Messrs Hall of Newcastle.

  About a week into the proceedings came a dramatic moment during the examination of those who had witnessed the accident. Amongst them was Thomas Delves M’Dowell, the boy from the Castalia that was among the vessels moored on the south side of Gallions Reach, who said:

  The Princess Alice was near the north shore, I was looking at the Bywell Castle, and I turned my head and saw the two vessels 50 yd from each other. She was struck half-way between the buoys below us and the powder magazine, and north of midstream. I ran forward and told the men there was a collision. Kettle and Cheeseman were the two sailors in charge, the captain being away. When the boat came along with Kettle in it, Kettle got out and Cheeseman got in. They said it was no use our going. My brother and I got in to go to the collision. Cheeseman held the painter1 and stopped us from going. Cheeseman was discharged for not rendering assistance.2

  James Cheeseman was called to be given the opportunity to explain why he had not gone to the assistance of the stricken vessel. He said he had seen the two ships drifting in collision down with the tide, but hadn’t gone to help because he had to fetch the captain from Woolwich Pier at 9 p.m. and that Kettle had told him that the report of the collision said it was very slight. James Kettle said he did not think the collision was as serious as it was and so did not consider it necessary to put off in the boat.

  ‘The two lads wanted to go,’ said Mr Balguy, ‘and the two men would not take the trouble.’

  ‘I did not think it was necessary,’ replied Kettle, at which there were hisses in court.3

  The next day, young M’Dowell was back ‘to correct a mistake’. It had been Kettle who had held the painter and prevented him and his brother from going to help with the rescue, not Cheeseman. They had threatened to summon him and were ‘going on at him’ outside4. They had both been discharged from the Castalia. A clearly concerned Mr Myburgh wanted to know whether they had threatened to do the boys any harm and whether they needed protection. No, the boy assured him and Mr Balguy, they had only threatened to summon him and he was not in fear of them.

  One of the other revelations occurred following the appearance (at the request of Captain Pim) of Samuel Pether, one of Carttar’s naval experts who, at the inquest, had claimed that the Princess Alice was too lightly constructed for her task. To illustrate the weak cladding of the Princess Alice Pether produced fragments of iron taken from the outside of the paddle-steamer’s hull and a piece of wood from the main deck. Pether was questioned and rather taken apart by the Princess Alice counsel, Dr W. Phillimore, who revealed that Pether’s expert qualifications were rather flimsy or, as author Gavin Thurston put it, he was little more than ‘a jobbing ship repairer for upriver craft’. The next day, Dr Phillimore called Mr Denton, the London Steamship Company’s superintendent engineer, who informed the court that it looked ‘improbable’ that the piece of wood produc
ed had actually come from the Princess Alice. Not only was it of the wrong thickness, but no hole had been found from where it was supposed to have been taken. Nor did it have the necessary caulking or signs of wear and boot marks he would expect from decking. There were similar doubts about the fragments of iron plate. Consequently, the magistrate, Mr Balguy, thought it advisable that the assessors see the deck of the vessel for themselves.

  Meanwhile, another construction expert, John Scott Russell, a naval architect and vice president of the Naval Architect’s Society, told the inquiry that he thought the Princess Alice was well enough built for the work she was meant to do. She had originally sailed the landlocked sea between Wemyss Bay and Arran in Scotland, but he compared her with a similar ship, the Cleopatra, that had crossed the Bay of Biscay and gone on to the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. He thought the iron used on the Princess Alice was excellent, ‘better than a good deal that is made now for such purposes’. In his opinion no ship could have withstood the blow from the Bywell Castle.

  I do not think any construction of the ship would have offered very sensible resistance to her being cut through the middle … no thickness of steel or clever invention5 could prevent her from being cut in two. Its fate was as inevitable as a vessel being pierced by a cannon ball. If I wanted to run down a ship I would aim at the spot where the vessel was struck, it was the most vulnerable part.

  Indeed, not even the famous Great Eastern (which Russell had built), with its ¾ in plates, could have withstood the force of an 890-ton mass, like the Bywell Castle, moving at four knots and concentrated in a single, upright stem. As for the wooden stringer (suggested by Pether as protection) it would have been ‘as matchwood’.