Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

11 articles on this Page

----THE WRECK OF THE "PRIMROSE…

News
Cite
Share

THE WRECK OF THE "PRIM- ROSE HILL." THE BOARD OF TRADE INQUIRY. The inquiry instituted by the Board of Trade into the loss of the Liverpool sailing ship "Prim- rose Hill" and 33 lives near the South Stack on the 28th December last was resumed on Wednes- day, at the County Court, Liverpool, before Mr W. J. Stewart, stipendiary magistrate, with Rear Admiral Boyes, Commander Caborne, C.B., R.N.R., and Captain Anderson as nautical assessors. The various interests concerned were represented as follows :—The Board of Trade, Mr Tobin; the owners of the "Primrose Hill," Mr C. A. M. Lightbound; the owners and mas- ter of the tug "William Joliffe," Mr Leslie Scott; the relatives of the apprentices drowned in the vessel, Mr A. A. Miller. Further evidence was called by Mr Tobin. Henry Roberts, first-class pilot, said be joined the "Primrose Hill" on the afternoon she sailed, and left her at the bar, when everything was se- cured and battened down on the ship, but no sail was set. Replying to one of the assessors, the witness said so far as he observed the crew ap- peared to understand the orders given. Walter Otto Pederson, master of the tug "Wil- liam Joliffe," gave particulars of that vessel, and of the events which preceded and followed the breaking of the tow rope between the tug and the "Primrose Hill." He reckoned when he lost the ship she was about 20 miles N.W. of Bard- sey. After losing her he steered about in various directions looking for her, but without success, and concluded she had got more canvas on and gone to the westward. He reached Holyhead on the morning of the 88th, and afterwards was hailed by the coxswain of the lifeboat, who re- ported the "Primrose Hill" to be off the South Stack. The tug was then in the outer harbour. He did not try to go out because there was too much sea on. The wind had then changed to N.W. No tug tried to go out from Holyhead to help. The lifeboat tried, but could not do it, the weather being too bad. By Mr Lightbound He went to Holyhead be- cause he came to the conclusion that the ship did not want his services, as she had got sail on and gone away to the westward'. Robert Green, mate of the tug, was of opinion that the "Primrose Hill" was quite safe when the tug left, but if the wind had got more to the westward she would not have been in so good a position, as she could not have got out to sea so easily. By an Assessor: They had besides the hawser that broke a 14in. mauilla hawser on board the tug, which he believed would have held the ship if it had been practicable to get it on board, which was not the case. He had never tried throwing out a buoy and letting it drift to a ship in bad weather. That might be done by; daylight, but not at night. William Young, principal keeper at the South Stack Lighthouse, said he saw the "Primrose Hill" about two miles off at 12.30 on December 28th bearing W.N.W. She had set the fore lower topsail, but it was not properly sheeted home and not properly set. Considering the state of the weather he considered her in a dangerous position. The flood: tide would take her towards the Skerries. Afterwards they tried to set the foresail between one o'clock and two, but it was not sheeted home. The vessel was then a mile and a half off. Asked if he thought arything could have been done on board to get her further off the land, the witness replied in the negative. The setting of the foresail caused the vessel to forge ahead. Previous to that she had been merely drifting nearer to the rocks. He did not think they could have set any more can- vas, blowing as it was. They could have done nothing more than they did. The witness got rockets ready, and next observed the ship had just anchored, and was swinging to the anchors about 300 or 400 yards west of the lighthouse. The witness described the breaking of the cable and the stranding of the vessel, nothing of which was visible after five minutes. The weather was exceptionally heavy. He saw no signs of panic on board, but all seemed to be cool. By an Assessor: He believed if the vessel had not anchored, but had continued forging ahead, she would have cleared Penrhos Point, on which she stuck. Captain Carter, of the coastguard, and in charge of the rocket apparatus at Holyhead, spoke to having received several reports about the "Primrose Hill" from the South Stack. Mr Tobin read the messages, which showed increas- ing urgency, concluding with the message, "For God's sake tell rocket apparatus to hurry"; and, finally, "Ship sunk, out of sight." In his opinion he was not sure if the tug "William Joliffe" could have put out to her assistance. He believed the lifeboat attempted to put out. The witness started with the rocket apparatus at seven minutes past two, and described how he followed the course of the vessel until he got about a hundred yards off her; but it was too late to give assistance then—the masts had gone. He did everything possible to rescue life. William Owen, coxswain) of the steam lifeboat at Holyhead, paid he saw the "Primrose Hill" being towed down by the "William Joliffe" on the afternoon of the 27th. The glass was then falling fast, and he expected them to come into Holyhead for shelter. The glass was then below 29. About one o'clock on Friday the coast- guard brought him a message to go to the "Wil- liam Joliffe," which was then in the harbour, and tell him to go out to the "Primrose Hill," which was then drifting on to the rocks below the Stack. The "William Joliffe" did not move, but the "Hannah Joliffe" did, though she did not get outside the breakwater. The lifeboat tried to get out, but could not get beyond the end of the breakwater. By an Assessor: The "William Joliffe" was the larger of the two boats. William Cowan, a former seaman on board the "Primrose Hill," examined by Mr Tobin, said he had had thirty years' experience at sea. He was six or seven months on the "Primrose Hill" in 1897 and 1898, on a voyage to San Francisco, where he left her. The Stipendiary Magistrate You deserted, in fact. The Witness I did desert her. There were thirteen of a crew before the mast and twelve apprentices on board. The crew was too short altogether. There was "a whole pile" of gentle- men's sons. It was very hard working the sails. The donkey boiler was never used at sea. By Mr Lightbound: He forfeited L7 odd in wages. Mr Tobin If so, he probably had good reason. The witness said the ship was right enough. He attributed the loss of the vessel to "them beys." Frederick George Noton said he was second officer of the "Primrose Hill" from 1894 to 1898. He was satisfied with the labour and life-saving appliances on board. He was also satisfied with the crews and the proportions of A.B.'s and ap- prentices. He had no fault to find. He was able to put her about with one watch. Since he left he had been chief officer of the sister ship the "Bidston Hill," and had sailed her with similar crews with safete. He used always the steam, winch when going to sea for hoisting sail, &c. John Petersen, examined by Mr Tobin, said he was an A.B. on board the "Primore Hill" on her last voyage, and was the only survivor. He remembered the breaking of the tug's hawser the night before she was lost. He was below at the time. The watch below was summoned on deck at once. He then saw the tug "William Joliffe" about three cable lengths off. The captain gave orders to square the yards and set the fore and aft sails and those orders were properly car- ried out. ihere was no confusion. The crew stemed to understand their business thoroughly. They ran beiore the wind about half-an-hour. It blew from abou_. south-west. The captain then ordered the tow-boat to come alongside, and her captain advised the captain of the "Primrose Hill" to heave-to till daylight. He ordered the chief offiosr t0 brace the yards sharp up, and the order was obeyed properly. lie asked the tug to by. and the reply waa 'All right". bnt ,t 1 30 thev lost sight of her. The weather was very rough, the wind increasing gradually all the'time and it was also hazj. The witness went on'the look-out from one o clock to two. He could then see from three to four miles, and for a while he could see the tug « hgtphunfy He kept on deck till four o clock,d h«! below. The wind was still squally. They made very little the water between twelve and shore fact, sometimes they drifted on the At a quarter to four he saw a •-> starboard beam. They were sa "A 0f wind at that time. At eight on the m g the 28th he came on deck again, and AS ent wheel. She was still under the same sails, and the wind was blowing from west-north-west. They were sailing close to the wind, making very little headway, still on the port tack, and drilt- ing to leeward. The weather had got still worse. The ship was heading about east-north-east, but no definite course was steered till about eleven o'clock, when he was still at the wheel. He re- mained there till she struck—six hours and a half. At eleven o'clock orders were given to t loose the topsails and the foresails, and bring her helm hard up, to wear the ship round. Those oiders were obeyed, and she was put on a south.. easterly course, and she was kept on that course till she struck the reek. No further orders were given as to the sails. The court at this stage adjourned. On Thursday, John Petersen was recalled, and ,ex,tirtined- by Mr Tobin. He stated that about eleven o'clock in the forenoon of the day the ship was wrecked the jigger staysail carried away, and five minutes late? the fore topmast staysail was blown into ribbons. The ship was heading about north-east then. About noon, when the vessel was heading about south-east, the fore lower topsail was set, but it was blown into ribbons almost immediately afterwards. When the two anchors were let go, soundings were taken, and showed five fathoms of water. The starboard cable carried away about five minutes after anchoring, and the ship then dragged her port anchor, and drifted towards the rocks. Witness was at the wheel when the anchors were let go shortly before the disaster, and, had been there since eight o'clock in the morning. The reason why he was so long at the wheel was I because all the other men had been, busy all the morning getting the hawser in and attending to the sails. As the ship dragged towards the rocks the captain called all hands on to the poop, I and served them with lifebelts. The captain and the chief officer refused to take lifebelts, al- though there were plenty on board. Witness was on the starboard side hanging on to the rail on the poop when the ship struck on the rocks. The poop was washed right on to the rocks, and the second time she struck he went down to the bottom. He was then washed up on to a cliff about fifteen feet high, and a. farmer's son, named Owen, caught hold of him and rescued him. He was afterwards taken to a. farmer's house close by. When the anchors were let go the foresail, fore lower topsail, main top staysail, and mizzen top staysail were set. Notwith- standing that amount of sail they were uita-ble to keep the ship off the land because of the heavy sea. By Commander Caborme All the seamen on board the vessel were good men, he considered. He had known five of them before. Fred Ernest Hinde, the stevedore who loaded the "Primrose Hill," stated, in answer ,to Mr ¡ Tobin, that the cargo was properly stowed and dunnaged. The vessel c-a,rried about 3400 tons dead weight. On leaving Liverpool, the vessel was in very good sailing trim. He was in- structed by the captain to trim the ship an inch by the stern, and he did so. Mr Tobin submitted the questions on which the Board of Tradle desired the opinion of the Court. These were as follow — (1) Was the vessel in good and! seaworthy condition as regards hull amd equipments whttn she left Liverpool on the 24th December last? (2) Was every possible assistance given to the late master by the superintendent of mercan- tile marine at Liverpool and1 his staff to obtain a< crew? Was the vessel delayed on account of the late master being unable to obtain a crew, and, if so, what was the reason of the difficulty? (3) How was the vessel officerediancl manned ? (4) What description of hawser was used! for towing? Was it in good condition and sufficient for the purpose intended? (5) What was the cause of the hawser break- ing about 10 p.m. of the 27th December? (6) What wa.s done on board the "Primrose Hill" after the hawser parted? What was her position about 12.30 p.m. of the 28th December, and had she then or thereafter sufficient sail set to keep her out of danger? {7) If the vessel did not carry sufficient sail to keep her out of danger either before or after noon of the 28th 'December, having regard to the weather, could more sail be set? Should more sail have been set, and, if so, why was it not set? (8) Was it, in the opiniion of the Court, a. pro- per course to let go the anchors after clearing the South 'Stack? When the anchors were let go, was there any attempt madie to take in sail, and, if not, should an attempt ha.ve been made ? (9) What was the position of the vessel at or about 1.50 p.m. lof the 28th December? Was she then flying signals of distress, and what were the circumstances in which the steamer "Hibern- ia" could not render her assistance? <10) What were the circumstances in which I the Holyhead steam lifeboat rendered no assist- ance to the vessel? v (11) Did' the tug "William Joliffe" stand by the "Primrose Hill" after the hawser parted, at about 10 p.m. of the 27th December? At what time on the night of the 27th December was the vessel lost to sight to those on board the tug, and!, was every effort thereafter made by the master of the tug ,to findl the ship and render assistance? (12) What was the cause of the loss of the vessel, and what were the circumstances in which the Holyhead Rocket Brigade could ren- der no assistance, and so many lives were lost? (13) Do. the facts of this case show that the crew of the "fPrimrose Hill" as constituted1 was or was not adequate for the purpose of her safe navigation on. a winter voyage, and on the voy- age in question, having regard to the weather encountered'? (14) Does blame attach to Mr William Price, the manager, or to the master of the tug, in con- nection with the loss of the "Primrose Hill?" (15) Whit was the value of the vessel to her owners? What were the insurances effected, and how were they apportioned'? Mr Price, the managing owner, was recalled, and examined! by Mr Lightbound!. 'He said the "Primrose Hill" was fitted, with double topsails and double topgallant sails, and with patent Mocks throughout. The mate held a master's I certificate, and in his efforts to get a properly certificated' second officer witness applied to the Mercantile Marine Service Association and! the I Merchant Service Guild. He had with him a letter written by 'Captain Wilson, of the "Prim- J rose Hill," to his wife, before sailing. It con- tained the following passage: — "I succeeded better to-day than I expected. Got on board about 1.30 p.m. with our full complement, and I as the weather is moderate, I thought it was best to make a start at once." Mr Lightbound said he considered it advis- able to. put in that letter as the last words of the captain as to what he thought regarding the crew he had got. Witness went on to state that. in addition to the "Primrose Hill," he had! under his manage- ment two sister ships, the "Bidston Hill" and the "Marlborough Hill." These vessels were rigged and equipped similar to the "Primrose Hill," and they were sailed with a crew approxi- mately the same as that carried by the latter vessel on her fatal voyage. He had intended1 to send his son on board the "Primrose Hill" on I her last voyage. The Stipendiary: 'Was the vessel delayed at all because the master was unable to get a. crew? The. Witness Well, she mig'ht have been able to get away on1 the Saturday instead of not leav- ing dock till the Sunday. Captain William Lang, caTled by Mr Light- bound. stated that he wa.s the master of the "Marlborough Hill." which was under the same management as the "Primrose Hill." The "Marlborough Hill" was built in 1885, and he had been master of her ever since. She was a. sister ship to the "Primrose Hill." He had heard what the crew of the "Primrose Hill" was on her last voyage, and, speaking from practical experience of a sister ship. Tie thought that the crew was sufficient. He had sailed the 'Marl- borough Hi31" with appnoxf/mately a. similar crew, and even with less. He was allowed a fiee hand by the owners in engaging a crew, and was not found fault with for engaging one or two more or one or two less. He had sailed with a crew two less than that of the "Primrose Hill," but he could not say that the units of his crew were more effective individtuaUy than the units of the "Primrose Hill." He had always sailed with twelve apprentices. By Rear-Admiral Boyes: He had never been m a similar position to the "Primrose Hill" be- 'fore she was wrecked, and he admitted that it was a very trying position'. This concluded the evidence. Mr Miller then asked1 to be heard, but the Stipendiary said he might argue as much as he liked1, and when he sat down he would give his judgment. Mr Miller I wish it to. tbe perfectly clear lhat T. claim the right to address the Court on qu«'s- tions which have been raised'. • ,e, Stipendiary: Well, I say you have no right to be heard. t Mr Miller: Very sir, but I can reifer you 'IT precedents, if you wish. Miller lefKe ™ TesPonse> and ilr l. f ^gKWd'' the Court on •behalf of the owners said Mr Price had had to bear the brunt of the most extraordinarv ru- mours with regard to the "Primrose Hill pnd all sorts of unpleasant things had been si :d About him. The inquiry had clearly demon- strated that no blame whatever attached to Mr Price. He submitted that the ship w»« ell equipped', well manned, and well handled. Of course, there was a, certain amount of tèoo.y as to manning, but he submitted .that it/ shculd J not weigh as against experience,, and experience j had shtown that this vessel wa", adequately and fully manned. The Stipendiary said the Board of Trade had t axlmitte-11 that, upon the basis of the majoii Ly- report, this vessel was just, slightly in excess of the Hmit. Mr lightbound, continuing, submitted that the loss of the vessel was Jue to exceptionally stormy weather, and that this was one of (he cases in which the sea had claimed its toll. All the evidence went to show tihat the vessel was well manoeuvred by the captain. Mr LesMe Scott, on behalf of the lug, sub- mitted! that, after losing sight of the !hip, her master was entitled to conclude, in view of the circumstances, that she had made good her pas- sage to the westward, and was out nf danger. Subsequently, when news was received' that the "Primrose Hill" was in extremfcty, the weatner was such that it was impossible for the tug to make an atteiaipt at rescue, the steam lifeboat, which put out to her, hawing to put back. This concluded the case, and, the Court ad- journed to Wedtnesday. JUDGMENT. Judgment was delivered on Wednesday. The Court found the ship to have been in good and seaworthy condition with regard to hull and equipment. The master of the ittg should have remainedl longer in the neighbourhood of her after the. parting of the tow rope. The CHW was not adequate for the voyage in question, but there was no evidence to satisfy the Court that the loss of the ship was due to such inadequacy, nor was the Court prepared to sav that blame attached, to. Mr William Price, the managing owner, in connection with the loss. He would have been well advised if he had insisted' upon a more adequate crew, especially having regard to the fact that twelve of them 'were appren- tices, of whom six had1 never been to sea before.

HOW THE YEOMANRY LEFT RUABON.

TEE GOVERNORSHIP OF CARNARVON…

A SEVENTH DAUGHTER.

Advertising

[No title]

[No title]

Advertising

NATURALISTS AT CARNARVON ¡

NORTH WALES MEDICALS-I ASSOCIATION.

Advertising