THE PASSING OF THE SAILING SHIP.
[TO THE EDITOR OF TUB 'SPECTATOR.."]
Sin,—in your issue of May 7th, and under the above heading, there appeared an article from the pen of Mr. F. T. Bullen. To me, who have passed through every grade from apprentice to first mate of sailing vessels, many of the statements made by Mr. Bullen's fo'c's'le friend seem so remarkable that I am induced to ask through your columns for a little enlighten- ment on the matter.
I have towed round from Liverpool to Cardiff on several occasions, but always with a " runner " crew, the real ones being invariably shipped only when the vessel was ready to sail. What was the idea of carrying a whole crew when under towage ? The 'Alcestis' was a four-masted barque of two thousand and ten tons official measurement. When fully loaded she had on board three thousand two hundred tons of coal. In fact, she was carrying one thousand one hundred and ninety tons over and above her official measure- ment. Might I ask what had become of the Plimsoll mark, or what amount of freeboard remained under such conditions ? To me it seems scarcely possible that any ship of the present day could put to sea in such an overloaded state.
I now come to the crucial point of the article mentioned, —viz., the manning of the vessel. To an inexperienced reader of that narrative it would appear that the partial dis- mantlement and final abandonment of the ' Alcestis ' were wholly owing to the incapacity of her crew. As a matter of fact, however, whatever happened was undoubtedly brought about by the need of sufficient men to handle a ship of that size. The British Board of Trade has laid down certain rules respecting the number of hands to be carried in each vessel, one man and one boy to each one hundred tons of official measurement. Therefore, Sir, this two-thousand-ton ship should have borne on her articles twenty able-bodied seamen with twenty boys. Of course no ship would carry so many youngsters, but their equivalent would mean, say, eight extra hands and four ordinary seamen, together with the four ' Conway ' apprentices already on board. Thus we have a full crew of twenty-eight A.B.'s, four ordinaries, and four apprentices. Yet I should not think that such a craft as this ' Alcestis ' was would have gone to sea with less than twenty-five A.B.'s, the very lowest number to be carried with safety either for the ship or those risking their lives on her. Instead of that, however, we have this great four-masted barque actually putting to sea with twelve able seamen and four ordinaries in the forecastle ! Which means that there were but six A.B.'s, two ordinaries, and two apprentices in each watch. Now from that number must be always taken one band at the helm, and as I make no reduction for a look-out by night—in such a craft the latter would be called from the fo'c's'le head to help at the making or taking in of canvas, bracing the yards, &c., &c.—we therefore have the statement of Mr. Bullen's friend that five men and two ordinaries were alone available to handle this ship laden with three thousand two hundred tons of coal Can any unprejudiced mind greatly wonder if such unhappy mortals grew tired of their agreement to take the vessel round Cape Horn ? Why, Sir, she had a crew only sufficient to handle a twelve-hundred-ton craft ; and bow the Captain or the owners expected the remaining eight hundred tons to be sailed without assistance of any kind passes my compre- hension. At any rate, I am anxiously awaiting some explana- tion on the point from Mr. Pullen or his fo'c's'le acquaintance, and it will afford me extreme pleasure to discover that my ideas on this matter are wholly erroneous. Never in the worst days of ray experience of undermanned ships did I either hear of or know of such a case.
Then, again, we have the assurance that "it was hell to get a bit of sail on her." What that means I fail to realise. And I also decline to believe that with eleven men, four ordinaries, and four apprentices it should have taken anything like four hours to set three upper topsails, with another four hours "to get the top-gallants and the royals set." Had this ' Alcestis ' no capstans on board? Even with so few hands to accom-
plish anything, they might surely have taken the different halyards to the main winch or to the big main capstan, and under even worse-manned conditions it need never have occupied more than half-an-hour to masthead the heaviest spar on board. In other days, when ships were far more loftily rigged than at present, and there was therefore much more sail to hoist, I never knew a few men take more than fifteen minutes to "taut leach" any topsail. By that I mean, of course, with a capstan, since the crews of many "old-time" ships could easily "run away" with the halyards, and masthead the yard in five minutes. No, Sir, the loss of the ' Alcestis ' was not owing to the ignorance, but to the insufficiency, of men on board, and I am rather astonished to perceive that Mr. Bullen did not understand that fact himself. His friend does not complain of their inability to steer the ship, or to perform other duties. They were simply disgusted and "savaged" by the trick played on them in asking flesh and blood to perform impossibilities, and so long as shipowners and shipmasters will put to sea in undermanned vessels, so long may we hear of accidents and disasters such as befell this Alcestis.'
I apologise for asking so much apace in your journal, but in conclusion I might add that the great German sailing vessel ' Potosi ' of which Mr. Bullen speaks carries between twenty-five and thirty hands in the fo'c's'le, and her master is therefore in a position to do as he pleases in the matter of "carrying on," knowing that sail can be snugged down at any moment.—I am, Sir, &c., JOHN A. HIGGINSON,
Previous page
