“You will bear in mind that we are now impressing upon you stringent rules, long laid down by us for the guidance of our captains, the terms of which are plain and unmistakeable, and can leave no doubt as to your clear course of action in the circumstances referred to, and we expect them to be implicitly obeyed; but, if otherwise, the conduct of those who disregard them can only be looked upon as extremely culpable, and deserving the severest censure.”
[223] [Appendix No. 12, pp. 609-10].
[224] “Cunard line.—Notice.—With the view of diminishing the chances of collision, the steamers of this line will henceforth take a specified course for all seasons of the year.
“On the outward passage from Queenstown to New York or Boston crossing meridian of 50 at 43 lat., or nothing to the north of 43.
“On the homeward passage, crossing the meridian of 50 at 42 lat., or nothing to the north of 42.”
Note.—In July, 1871, the late Mr. William Wheelwright laid before Mr. Chichester Fortescue (now Lord Carlingford), then President of the Board of Trade, a large and beautifully executed chart, “showing an eastern and western route for steamers crossing the Atlantic, whereby collision may be avoided, and the fleet of fishing-vessels on the banks of Newfoundland protected.” Mr. Wheelwright appears to have been the first person to make known this valuable suggestion (which might with advantage be enforced on all passenger steamers engaged in the northern branch of the Transatlantic trade), as he published a pamphlet on the subject so far back as 1846.
[225] If my readers will refer to the Report of the Royal Commission on Unseaworthy Ships (1873-74), they will find the following summary of the losses of ships at sea from 1856 to 1872 inclusive, which have been the subject of enquiry at the instance of the Board of Trade:—Losses attributable to unseaworthiness of hull, compasses, equipment, and outfit, within the power of the owners to remedy, 4½ per cent.; losses to be attributed to carelessness, drunkenness, ignorance, incompetency, and absence of discipline, 65 per cent.; losses from stress of weather, and causes not apparently preventable, 30½ per cent. This last item includes 38 wrecks of which no cause is assignable. See also article, “Merchant Shipping Legislation,” in the ‘Westminster Review’ for April, 1875, by Mr. Charles Lamport; and a very able article by his brother, the late Mr. W. J. Lamport, of Liverpool, entitled the “Plimsoll Agitation,” which appeared in the ‘Theological Review’ for January, 1874.
[226] It is satisfactory to note by the official returns, that, with respect to ships carrying passengers, the loss of life is not so great as is generally supposed. Between 1847 and 1873 inclusive, 22,186 vessels left the United Kingdom, with 5,388,163 passengers and 847,550 of crew—in all 6,235,713 persons. Out of the above number, 103 ships were lost, and 6129 lives, giving a percentage in the loss of ships of ·46, or not one-half per cent., and in the loss of life ·09, or less than one person in the thousand thus conveyed. This return refers to ships which come under the “Passenger Act.” See “Report of Royal Commission of 1873-74.”
[227] There are probably very few shipowners who actually over-insure ship or freight with a view to their loss, but when these are fully covered, so that a loss may become a gain, it is not in human nature to be, under such circumstances, as careful as if a loss were really a loss; and, when times are bad or ships unprofitable, the temptation to carelessness is very great.
Not long since a shipowner of high reputation and on whose word I can implicitly rely, met another shipowner, who, complaining of the bad times, in the course of conversation said: “And to make matters worse I have also had a bit of very bad luck.” “What was it?” enquired my friend. “Oh!” said he, “a ship of mine I had just sold was lost the first voyage after I parted with her.” “Well,” replied my friend, “and where was the bad luck there?” “Where?” exclaimed this “unfortunate” shipowner, “why I bought her twenty years ago, and insured her at her full value, and had kept her so insured till I parted with her.” “And what made you do that?” enquired my friend. “Oh!” replied he, “she was an old ship, and an old-fashioned ship, and I thought that if she did happen to go to the bottom I might as well have a good and a new one in her place.”