The Court-Martial

With the Eurydice all but recovered, and there having been opportunity to inspect the inside of the wreck as she was beached initially in Sandown Bay and then off St Helen’s, the court-martial and the attendant investigation into the original disaster could now take place.

Terminology

Some of the detail in the reports of the court-martial may well sound alien to anyone (such as myself!) not at all versed in in the language of sailing, so before we look to the reports, here’s an introduction to some of the terminology.

TO DO - glossary [sheet, clew, halyard, hawser, tack x 2, brails, halued up, line, abaft, before, port, port, starboard, bow, stern, hauled out, let go, spanker, fully set / set full,fearnoughted, leaded, buckler, hoked in, sashes, glass broken, scuttle, wheel, capstan, jigger, rudder, false keel, weather topsail lips, helm, muzzle-lashing, tonkin, tackle, jewels, coarses, fast, out haul, off the the “jack”, how far sheets from being home, motacentric height, freeboard]

dwebp IMAGE.webp -o IMAGE.png

how to sail full rigged

how to sail full rigged part 2

how to sail full rigged part 3

Fig. 38 Example of sail names for a three masted sailing ship

The Court-Martial

The court martial was held on board the Duke of Wellington flagship, in Portsmouth.

The charges were read and the terms of the inquiry desscribed.

The court began with a statement from, and questioning of the survivor Benjamin Cuddeford, focussing on the state of the ship leading up to the storm, the availability of lifesaving equipment, and the ship’s general stability. He also observed how the crew wore blue, rather than white, working uniform, to reduce the amount of washing required.

A report from the first man on scene, several eye-witness statements regarding the weather and the sighting of the Eurydice as she passed from Ventnor, including one from a retired Nautical Assessor of the Board of Trade, and one from an Admiral, and a weather report from the captain of a ship out near the Nab lightship, were provided to the Court. Reports were also heard from the masters of the Emma, and the Badger, which had been passing St Catherine’s point at the time of the squall.

THE LOSS OF THE EURYDICE. - Wednesday, August 28th, 1878

Hampshire Telegraph, 1878-08-28, p. 2-3

OPENING OF THE COURT-MARTIAL.

Yesterday morning a, Court-Martial assembled on board of the Duke of Wellington,, flag-ship in Portsmouth Harbour, to inquire into the loss of H.M.S. Eurydice. The Court was comnposed of the following officers:— Admiral Edward G. Fanshawe, C.B., President; Captain the Hon. Walter Cecil Carpenter, H.M.S. Duke of Wellington ; Captain Theodere Morton Jones, H.M.S. Asia; Captain William Arthur, H.M.S. Vernon; Captain James Elphinstone Erskine, H.M.S. Boadicea; Captain Edward Kelly, H.M S. Cyclops ; Captain Duncan George Davidson, H.M.S. Serapis; Captain Charles James Brownrigg, H.M.S. Euphrates; and Captain George Parsons, H.M.S. Jumna. George P. Martin, Esq., barrister-at-law, officiated as Deputy-Judge-Advocate of the fleet.

On the Court being opened, the two survivors were marched in as prisoners pro forma, in charge of the Provost Marshal, Mr. John Hill. On the names of the officers composing the Court being called over, the survivors were asked if they had any objection to the members, and they replied int the negative.

The Deputy-Judge-Advocate of the Fleet then read the following:—

Admiralty, 28th March, 1878.
Sir,-I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of being cial the Admiralty to transmit to you herewith their Lordships’ warrant for assembling a court-martial at Portsmouth for the purposes of inquiring into the cause of the loss of H.M.S. Eurydice on the 24th instant, and of trying Benjamin Cuddeford, A.B,, and Sidney Fletcher, ordinary seaman, the survivors of that ship, under the 91st and 92nd Sections of the Naval Discipline Act, 1866

I am also directed to acquaint you that my Lords desire that you should preside at this Court, and that the enquiry should embrace the condition of the Eurydice in all respects, including that of stability.
I am &c.
ROBERT HALL.

Admiral E. G. Fanshawe, C.B.,
Portsmouth,
The warrant also addressed to Admiral Fanshawe was as follows:—
“Whereas you have reported to us the loss of Her Majesty’s ship Eurydice on the 24th of March, 1878, and whereas we think fit that a Court-martial shall be held, pursuant to the custom of the Navy, to inquire into the cause of the loss of the said ship, and that Benjamin Cuddeford, able seaman, and Sidney Fletcher, ordinary seaman, the survivors of the said ship, shall be tried undert the 91sat and 92nd sections of the Naval Discipline Act, 1868, we do hereby require and direct you to assemble a Court-martial as soon as convenientiy may be, which Court, you being President thereof, is hereby required and directed to inquire into the causes of the loss of Her Majesty’s ship Eurydice, and to try the said Benjamin Cuddeford and Siney Fletcher accordingly.”

The section referred to was as follows:-

91st Section :-When any one of her Majesty’s ships shall be wrecked, or lost, or destroyed, or taken by the enemy, such ship shall, for the purposes of the Act, be deemed to remain in commission until her crew be regularly removed into some other of H.M.’s ships of war, or until a Court-martial shall have been held, pursuant to the custom of the Navy in such cases, to inquire into the cause of the wreck, loss, destruction, or capture of the said ship.

92nd Section :- When no specific charge shall be made against any officer or seaman, or other person in the Fleet, for, or in respect, or in consequence of such wreck, loss, destruction, or capture, it shall be lawful to try all the officers and crew, or all the surviving officers and crew, of any such ship, together, before one and the same Court, and to call upon all or any of them when upon their trial to give evidence on oath or affirmation before the Court touching any of the matters then under inqiry, but no officer or seaman or other person shall he obliged to give any evidence which may tend to criminate hmself.

The Deputy Judgc-Advocate said Cuddeford would be the first witness.

The President asked whether it was necessary that the Provost-Marshal should remain in charge of the Prisoners ? and the Deputy Judge-Advocate replied that it was not, if the Court chose to order otherwise.

The guarding of the survivors as ordinary prisoners was then relaxed, the Provost-Marshal resigning his custody of the two men.

Benjamin Cuddeford, able seaman, was called, and, in answer to the President, said he was an able seaman on board the Eurydice on the 24th of March last. The statement made by witness at the Admiralty as to the circumstanees of the catastrophe was read. It was ,as follows :—

On Sunday afternoon, March 24th, the watch at quarter to four was called to take in the lower studdingsail, I was on deck to attend the lower tack, and let it go. The Captain gave orders to take in the upper sails. The wind was then freshening. The Captain then ordered the men to come down from aloft, and then to let go the topsail halyards. The gunner’s-mate let go the topsail halyards, and another man, Bryant, let go the main sheet. The water was then running in over the lee nettings, on the starboard side, and washed away the cutter. The foretopmast studdingsail was then set, the wind being then about a point abaft the port beam. I caught hold of the main truss fall, and then caught hold of the weather netting and got on to the ship’s side. You could then see her keel. She righted a little before going down, bringing the mizentopsail out of the water. She then went gradually over from forward, the greater part of the hands being on the fore part of the ship outside. She then turned over, bringing the port cutter bottom upwards. I and another man (Richards) cut the foremast gripe. I then saw the Captain standing on the vessel’s side near the quarter boat, and the two doctors struggling in the water. I swam then some distance and found a life-buoy, which I put over my head, and then picked up some pieces of wood, which I gave to some of the men in the water. I then came across the copper punt, in which were five men. The sea capsized the punt, when they all got on to the bottom. They asked me if there were any signs of help. I told them the best thing they could do was to keep their spirits up. One of them was just letting go his hold of the punt. I do not know his name but think he was a man left behind from the Tamar. I next saw Mr. Brewer, the boatswain, with a cork life-belt on. He was struggling strongly. I then saw Fletcher with a belt and a beaker. I lost sight of him during the snow storm. About five p.m., after the weather cleared up, I saw Fletcher again, and we kept together and saw land. We made for the land, but finding it too rough we turned our backs to it and saw a schooner. The schooner bore down upon us and sent a boat, and picked up two officers (whom I had not previously noticed), with a wash deck locker. A rope’s end was thrown to me from the schooner, and I was picked up. I judge that I was in the water about an hour and 20 minutes. The officers picked up were Lieutenant Tabor, and a Captain of the Royal Engineers, who came on board at Bermuda, with a corporal, bombardier, four privates, and an officer’s servant of the Royal Engineers. The ship capsized about ten minmutes before four. The Captain was giving orders at the time, and had been carrying on the duty. We rounded in weather braces, and set the lower studdingsail at two p.m., The ship was then going 8 1/2 knots. I do not know who was the officer of the watch, as the Captain was carrying on the duty. The Hon. Mr. Gifford went to the wheel to assist, at the time the water was coneing over the nettings, in consequence of an order being given to put the helm up. I believe some of the main deck ports were open to let air in for the main deck mess. I don’t think the hands were turned up; there was hardly time for it. I saw most of the men forward take off their clothes and jump off before I lost sight of her in the squall. When the snow cleared off she was gone.

The President asked if that was a true account of what he saw and did, and witness replied that it was.—Q.: Have you anything to add of matters which came within your own observation which would give further information to the Court?—No, sir. —In answer to further questions, witness said he had been to sea 21 years on 9th proximo, and during the whole of that time he had been in the Royal Navy. He had been in the Eurydice about 14 months. It was about 14 years since he was rated an able seaman. For the first three months he did duty as Captain’s coxswain of the ship, and then he got rated second captain of the forecastle, and then captain of the quarter deck. He was in that position at the time of the accident. It was his afternoon watch on the 24th of March last. It was not customary on board to turn the hands of the watch up until they were wanted for duty. That was done on the day of the accident. He was on deck the best part of the afternoon of the day in in queston, when not wanted for duty. He noticed the Captain on deck just after half-past twelve o’clock, just after two, and about half-past three. The Captain was on the bridge then. Witness was asked to describe all the work done by the watch that afternoon, and he said just after 12.30 the port watch (his watch) was called to round in and set topmast studdingsails, which was done. About ten minutes past two they rounded in again and set the lower studdingsail. Just after half-past they were called again to shorten sail. They took in the lower studdingsail, and the Captain gave the order “Watch, in upper sails.” The men were hardly aloft before they were called down again. That was all the work done by the watch in the afternoon. Sub-Lieut. Randolph was officer of the watch that afternoon. The officer of the watch was forward superintending taking in the lower studdingsails when the captain gave the order to take in upper sails. The captain gave the order for the watch to take in the lower studdingsail, and when he did so the officer of the watch was on the bridge, and the captain told him to go forward and superintend the work. From 12.30 to 2.10, when the lower studdingsail was set, there was a moderate breeze. From the time it was set to the time it was taken in the weather was about the same until the squall came on. In addition to the topmast and lower studdingsail the ship was carrying all plain sail up to noon, when the topmast studdingsail was set, and after two the lower studdingsail was set. The gallant studdsngsails were unbent at Bermuda, and were not set. Just after the lower studdingsail was set, the captain gave the order to heave the log, and the quartermaster reported 8 1/2 knots -Q.: When the lower studdingsails were taken in were the lee lower braces ordered to be stretched, and the lee lower lifts overhauled, or any order given to lead you to suppose that the lower studdingsail was taken in preparatory to altering course, or bracing up, or did you believe it was on account of increasing wind?—I believe it was on account of the increasing wind.— Was the foretopmast studdingsail boom complaining when you attended the lower studdingsail tack ?—I did not notice that it was. -Had it been complaining seriously must you not have nearly heard it?—Yes, I must have noticed it. When the Captain gave the order “Take in upper sails ” he did not name what sails were to be taken. He gave the order quickly. “Watch, in upper sails.” The topgallantyardmen went aloft, but he did not notice the number. From the time the order was given to go aloft to the men being ordered down again was about a minute, and just about that time the squall struck the ship. When the starboard quarter boat was washed away the ship was going, to the best of his knowledge, about 12 knots. Directly the order was given to put the helm up the Hon. Mr. Gifford ran up the after ladder to go to the wheel, but he could not tell whether the helm was up or down. He did not notice whether the direction of the ship’s head was altered during the events which he had described.— Did you at the time consider, as a seaman, that everything was done during your watch that afternoon in a manner likely to prevent danger to the ship ?—Everything was carried on in a seamanlike manner, and nothing likely to incur danger.— There were two round life-buoys on the bow of each boat, one each side of the bridge, and a life belt for every man in the cutter The Eurydice sailed from Bermuda, he believed, on March 6th. The ship’s company messed on the lower and main decks. He messed in No.5 mess on the lower deck, starboard side. He could not say whether the lower deck scuttles were in or out. He was not aware of any general order as to the closing of the main deck ports in case of sudden squalls, bad weather, or at fixed times. The main dock ports were opened except two on each side, one abreast of the mainmast, and one two ports further aft. The sashes of the ports were not shipped. The ports closed were those with guns in them. The upper parts of those ports were triced up and bolted. He could not say whether the lower part of the other ports was opened or shut. He was in one of the main-deck messes during the afternoon, so had an opportunity of seeing whether the ports were open or shut. He believed the ship completed provisions at Bermuda. He did not know when as much as could be stowed was taken into the vessel. The ship filled up with water at the last moment before leaving Bermuda. They took in stores for conveyance to England. They included a lot of wire rigging, oil cans, and a lot more stores, which he did not see. There were no extra stores stored on the upper or main decks, but he believed there were some on the lower deck, some just abaft the mainmast, and some on top of the sail bins amidships. He could not say how these were secured.— Did you ever in the Eurydice, when the tanks were empty, fill them with salt water ?—No.—Was it ever done ?—No.—Was any alteration in the stowage of the ship or the stowage of the ballast made whilst you were there?— No.—By Captain the Hon. W. C., Carpenter: After we filled up with water at Bermuda there was a restriction placed upon the use of water.— During the time we had been in commission we always wore a white working rig, and to save water we wore a blue working rig on the way home from Bermuda. That made a considerable saving of water by not having so much washing to do. I first noticed signs of a squall when the watch piped “In lower studding sails.”— Did it not strike you as being more than an ordinary squall ?— I was busy at work and did not take notice. I cannot say whether the leesheets and halyards of the upper sails were let go when the upper yardmen went aloft, or at any other time. When the squall struck the ship I saw the main-sheet, and maintopsail halyards let go. The main-sheet was all clear, but the mainsail did not flow, owing to the lee clew being in the water.—Capt. Jones;: Had you every confidence in the ship as regarded her stability ?—Yes.—Can you say what the general feeling among the ship’s company was with regard to that point? — I cannot say.— Did you ever hear of them express any doubts on the subject?—No.— By Captain Arthur: On leaving Bermuda we took some live stock and fresh beef — two or three days’ supply— for issue to the ship’s company.—By Captain Erskine: The sails were full when the ship heeled over. When I last saw the Captain he was right aft on the bottom of the ship. He was by himself when I left him, and I believe he went down with his ship. The last words I heard him say were, “It’s of no avail.” There were a great number of men outside the ship besides the Captain, but they were forward. I did not actually see the ship go down. When I left she was pretty nearly out of sight-sinking. -By Captain Davidson: The ship’s standing lower rigging was of wire, and also the topmast rigging. — By Captain Brownrigg; I believe only the lee clew of the mainsail was set.—By Captain Carpenter: Nothing carried away, to my knowledge, when the squall struck the ship.

Sidney Fletcher, ordinary seaman, late of H.M.S. Eurydice, said he had been in the Navy two years and five months, but only five months in the Eurydice. The statement which this witness had also made with reference to the affair was read by the Deputy Judge-Advocate of the Fleet, and stated by witness to be correct. It was a similar statement to that made by Cuddeford. He was having tea at the time when he found the ship heeling over and the water running in through the starboard ports. He ran on deck and assisted to overhaul the topsail halyards. He then walked on the side of the ship along to the quarter, from whence he dived into the water. The Captain was on the port quarter, and witness saw him go down with the ship. He messed on the main deck, No. 21, on the starboard side. He believed some of the ports were open, and some shut. When he ran on deck the lee water ways filled right up on the main deck, and he could not look out of the port for the water running in it. When he went up on deck the heel of the ship was not so great as to make it difficult for him to get to the hatchway ladder. There were orders from the mate of the main deck to close the ports in rough weather, when there was a squall coming on, or in any other similar emergencies. These orders were given to the men in the messes. Mr. Allen, the gunner, was mate of the main deck. He did not know to whether Mr. Allen gave those orders in consequence of any instructions received from the Captain. Before leaving Bermuda the ship took in as much provisions as she could stow. The ship was filled up with water the day before leaving. They brought home some stores. On the lower deck abaft the mainmast was a quantity of biscuit. He believed it was all used on the voyage home. On the 24th March he believed the place where it had been stowed was quite clear. There was no alteration in the stowage of the ship or ballast during the time he was on board, to his knowledge.

By Capt. Carpenter: When I came on deck I was not told to overhaul the foretopsail halyards. I did it of my own accord. I was assisting another man in the work, The foretopsail yard had not come down. I did not hear anyone give orders to let go the topsail halyards.

By Captain Jones : I do not know how the topsail clew-lines were fitted. The driver was not set. There was a general rush to get from the main to the upper deck when the ship heeled over. He did not, however, see one get up.

By Captain Erskine;: We had not experienced any sudden triopical stormis whilst in the West Indies.

By Captain Brownrigg : About eight or nine minutes elapsed from the time I ran on deck to the ship sinking. I believe the sails were filled when I went on deck.

By Captain Parsons: I did not hear any pipe “Clear lower deck.”

Both Cuddeford and Fletcher were allowed to leave the Court at will, but were told to be within call in case they might he needed.

Staff Captain Charles James Polkinghorne, Master Attendant of Portsmouth Dockyard, produced a chart showing the position of H.M.S. Eurydice at midnight on March 2th. Between 3.30 and 4p.m. on that day the ebb tide had made, and was setting strongly to the south-west. The rate of the tide would be from three to four knots. He proceeded to the wreck on the night of March 24th. In consequence of that he made a report, which was now read to the Court. It was as follows:

Portsmouth Yard,
March 25th, 1878.

Sir,-I have to report that in accordance with your verbal orders at nine p.m. on the 24th inst. relative to the sad accident which had occurred to H.M.S. Eurydice, I left the Dockyard at 8.30 p.m. in the Camel tug, with Mr. Bowen, of Ventnor, and passing inside the N.W. Princessa buoy I shaped a course W.S.W. in the exact track a ship would take after passing Dunnose point, and at midnight I came on the wreck of the Eurydice, with her head to the south-east. She had her fore topgallantmast gone close to the cap, with the the topgallant mast hanging before the fore topsail. The main topgallantsail was set, and the main royal pole gone short off to the eyes of the topgallant rigging. The mizen royal was partially furled, and the ship in 11 1/2 fathoms of water. Dunnose bearing W.E.W. 2 1/2 miles ; Culver Cliff, N.N.E. half E. I anchored the Camel, in charge of Captain Dathan, Assistant Master-Attendant, with lights to indicate danger, half a cable’s length north of the wreck. I then proceeded, accompanied by Lieutenant Gough, Flag Lieut., in the Grinder tug, to Ventuor, and communicated with the schooner Emma, Jenkins, master, whilst Lieutenant Gough landed in the Coastguard boat, and communicated with the Commander of the Coastguard. I then returard to the Dockyard at six a.m., in the Grinder, leaving the Caml in charge of Staff-Captain Dathan, anchored near the wereck, and gave him instructions to make a careful search at daylight for any survivors from this sad catastrophe.

Mr. Robert Benjamin Baker, examined by the President said he wrote a note to him pointing out the peculiarities of the squall. It was as follows:—

Sunnyside, Oak-road, Shanklin,
March 25th, 1878.

Dear Sir,—Some years ago, when you were a mnember the of the Thames Conservancy Board, I was also a member of that Board, the nominee of the Board of Trade. I was also, at that time, Nautical Assessor to the Board of Trade. I mention these matters to let you know who I am. Yesterday (Sunday) I was on the verandah in front of my house, at four p.m, when the unfortunate vessel which has since foundered, hove in sight. After rounding Dunnose I took my glass, and made out this ithin vessel to be a frigate in full sail to royals, also foretopmast and lower studdingsails, with her yards braced up forward on the port tack. The wind was about N.W. and the ship headed about N.E. At this time the had storm was brewing from about N. to N.N.W., thick and dense. I became interested, as the ship continued to carry the same sail, when I saw the mizen royal either taken in or something carried away- I supposed the latter, as it is unusual for a man-o-war to take in one royal at a time. In a few moments the squall burst upon my house with considerable violence, accompanied by heavy drenching snow, which must have struck the ship in two or three seconds after, as it was blowving directly towards her from N.N.W. In about 10 or 15 minutes it cleared up again, when the ship was not in sight from my verandah. I thought nothing of it, supposing the ship had passed towards the Culver. My object in writing is to state facts that may tend to exonerate the unfortunate commander of the frigate. This squall did not to me appear to have so much wind in it, but merely a heavy downfall of either rain or snow, and I think it was likely that whoever was in charge of the deck of the frigate may have been ideceived as I was, particularly as the wind was light, and the weather fine before the squall. As an old sailor I feel it my duty to let you know that in my opinion any man might have believed that the approaching squall had little wind in it. It has struck me that any exoneration of the carelessness might be gratifying to the friends of those in command or on duty at the time of this dreadful calamity, and this has induced me to writo to you, and you are quite at liberty to make any use of the letter which may seem best to you to exonerate Captain Hare and others. I have for no hesitation in saying that the snow storm cloud did not assume the appearance of such a gust of wind as proceeded from it. Quite the contrary. The barometer had been gradually falling, but the weather remained fine, consequently very deceptive. I thought that they were going to reduce sail in frigate fashion.but unfortunately, if so, it was too late. I am induced to trouble you, as I have learned here to-day opinions expressed adverse to the skill and proper attention of those in charge of the frigate, and some of these opinions have been expressed by men who are quite strangers to me.
I am, dear sir, yours faithfully,
R. B. BAKER
Admiral Fanshawe. Portsmouth.

He should think the Eurydice passed Dunnose at about one and a-half miles distant. His house stood on an eminence considerably above the level of the sea. To the north-west of his house the land gradually rose. That impeded from his sight the lower part of the snow cloud. As there had been no wind that day, that assisted him in the belief that there Was not much wind in the cloud.

By Captain Carpenter : The sky for a considerable distance was overcast by the cloud, which was very dense, for nearly three-quarters of an hour before the squall broke. After the Eurydice opened out from Dunnose I think she must have seen the squall coming.

By Captain Jones : After the vessel rounded Dennose I expected to see the sails shortened, but what struck me was that they, frigate-like, were standing by till the last moment, and would then take them in smartly. Not half-an-hour elapsed from the time of my seeing the vessel to losing sight of her.

Commander Charles Oxley, of Her Majesty’s ship Excellent, said he was at Ventnor on the afternoon of the 24th March last, During the afternoon he saw a man-o’-war (supposed to be the Eurydice) pass between three and four o’clock. The ship appeared to be steering east north-east, and was about one and a-half or two miles from the shore. The vessel was under all plain sail, except the mizen royal and the port lower and foretopmast studdingsail. The spanker was set. There was a moderate breeze, and the ship was going from 7 to 8 knots. He had arrived from Portsmouth by the 7(?).30 train, and up to then it had been a bright, fine day. He did not notice any appearances of a storm when the EUrydice was passing Ventnor. About ten minutes to four the wind shifted suddenly to the northward, and a very strong sno squall came on. The high land prevented him seeing the squall till itwas close upon him, and he believed the high land at Dunnose would have partially prevented the Eurydice seeing it coming.

Admiral Robert Tryon said he saw the Eurydice pass Ventnor on the afternoon in question. She pass about 1 1/2 miles from the land. The ship had her foretopmast staysails set, which was unusual in a man-o’-war. She evidently came inshore to escape the tide, and he did not believe she was passing the land more than four miles, as the tide was very strong. The forecastle and after part of the deck were crowded with both officers and men looking at the land. The canvas the vessel was under was not more than the ship would be justified in carrying, There had been several snow squalls in the morning, but without wind. The weather was beautifully fine when the Eurydice passed Ventnor, and the sea was calm, He afterwards saw the storm come up. It broke upon Ventnor a few minutes before four o’clock, causing great dakness. He saw the storm about a quarter of an hour before it broke. He remembered seeing a schooner near shorten sail about that time.

Mr. James Chappell, master of the Lord Vivian, Government transport, said between three and four o’clock on the afternoon of March 24th his ship was in the vicinity of the Nab lightship, when he experienced a squall, which he had seen gathering up some time before it burst. The land from Gillicker to Blockhouse Fort was obscured by snow, and he commenced to shorten sail about four o’clock. They had taken in some of the sails and were lowering the jib, when the storm struck the ship with great violence. The first gust was the heaviest, lasting from 10 minutes to quarter of an hour, The weather previously had been very fine.

By Captain Jones: From my previous experience, I consider this to have been a storm of unusual violence, both in suddenness and severity. There was no high land to windward to prevent my seeing the squall approaching.

By Captain Carpenter: In my opinion a vessel between Culver Cliff and Dunnose could not have seen the squall approaching until it was close on it. From the time I first saw the squall to its striking the vessel was two or 2 1/2 minutes.

Mr. John Loutett, master of the steamship Badger, belonging to the London and Edinburgh Steamship Company, said he wrote a letter reporting a storm which he had encountered on March 24th off St. Catherine’s Point, In his letter witness expressed his opinion that the appearance of the squall coming could not be seen from Eurydice. He could not see it until clear of St. Catherine’s,therefore the Eurydice would get it without any warning.

Mt. William Langworthy Jenkins, master of the Emma, schooner of Padstow, said he made a report of the squall on the 24th March, and he now verified its accuracy. It was the statement, which has already appeared, of the rescue of the survivors. He did not see the Eurydice, but one of his men thought he saw the frigate. He encountered the squall about 4.45. He saw it about half-an-hour before it broke. When it did come on it came very suddently. The squall looked very black, and had the appearance of having wind out of it. They were under all plain sail before they saw the squall, and then they shortened sail. He considered the squall a sudden and violent one, but he had experienced heavier ones.

At this stage the Court adjourned until morning.

[EXTRACT : RAISING]

Fig. 39 HMS Eurydice, 1843, tanks

THE EURYDICE COURT MARTIAL - Wednesday, August 28th, 1878

Shipping and Mercantile Gazette, 1878-08-28, p. 7

Yesterday the inquiry into the loss of her Majesty’s ship Eurydice, which foundered of Dunnose Point, Isle of Wight, on March 24 last, was opened on board the Duke of Wellington flagship, Portsmouth. The Court was formally opened at half past 10 o’clock as a court-martial on the two survivors of the Eurydice —Benjamin Cuddeford, Able Seaman, and Sydney Fletcher, Ordinary Seaman; but so soon as they had given their evidence they were discharged, and other testimony was gone into. The Court was composed of the following Officers:— Admiral E. G. Fanshawe, C.B, Commander-in-Chief at Portsmouth, president; Captains Carpenter (Duke of Wellington), M. Jones (Asia), Arthur (Vernon), J. E. Erakine (Boadicea), F. T. Thomson (Victoria and Albert), E. Kelly (Cyclops), D. G. Davidson (Serapis), C. J. Brownrigg (Euphrates), G. Parsons (Jumna), and F. P. Doughty (Crocodile).

Benjamin Cuddeford, who was first sworn, said: “I was an able-bodied Seaman on board her Majesty’s ship Eurydice on March 24. The statement now read is the statement I made before the coroner. It is true account of what I said and did on March 24. In reply to the President witness said: I have been to sea 21 years. I have been able-bodied Seaman for 14 years. On board the Eurydice I was at first Captain’s Coxswain, and at the time of the accident I was Second Captain of the quarter-deck. It was my afternoon watch on Sunday, March 24. It was the custom on board the Eurydice for men not on the watch to remain below until wanted for duty. I was on deck nearly the whole the afternoon, and I saw Captain Hare on deck and on the bridge at various intervals. I remember seeing him on deck at half-past 12 o’clock, and at 10 minutes past 2 o’clock. I saw him on deck again shortly after half-past 3. He then on the bridge. My watch came on duty shortly after half-past 3. Afterwards an order was given to set starboard and studding sails, and more sail was subsequently set. Soon after the watch was called to shorten sail, which was done. I cannot now remember who was the Officer of the watch. I think it was Mr. Randolph, Sub-Lieutenant.

The President: When the order was given to shorten sail what sails were ordered to be taken in ?

Witness- The Captain gave orders take in the upper sails, and he ordered the men down from aloft. The Officer of the watch was then forward assisting to take in the lower studdingsails which the Captain had ordered be taken in.

On what part the ship was the Captain?— He was carrying on duty on the quarter-deck, and the Officer of the watch was on the forecastle, where he had been sent by the Captain to assist in taking in the sail. From half-past 12 to 10 minutes past 2 o’clock, when the lower studdingsail was set, there was a moderate breeze blowing, and I noticed no difference in the weather until the squall came on. The ship was under all plain sail at 12 o’clock, and at 12 20 the topmast studdingsails were set, and later the lower studdingsails.

At what rate was the ship going ?—The leg was hove just after the lower studdingsail was set, and the ship was going at the rate of 8 1/2 knots per hour.

When the Captain gave the orders to take in the upper did name the sails, did he name the sails that were to taken in ?— The order he gave quickly was that “Watch upper sails.”

Did the topgallant men go aloft ?—Some went aloft, but I do not remember the number. The starboard quarter boat was washed away about one minute after the order was given to shorten sail. It was about one minute after the Captain gave the order to the men to go aloft that the gale struck the Ship and she heeled right over. When the starboard quarter-bot was washed away the vessel was going, to the best of my knowledge, about 12 knots an hour.

Was the ship’s head altered during the successive events that you have described ?—I did not notice.

Did you at the time consider, as a Seaman, that everything was done during your afternoon watch on March 24 in a seamanlike manner likely to prevent danger to the ship ?— In my opinion everything was done in seamanlike manner, and no confusion prevailed.

Was that your opinion at the time ?— Yes.

What means were there for saving life board the ship? -There were two round buoys in the bow of each boat, and life-belts for all the Crew. The Eurydice sailed from Bermuda, I believe, on March 6.

Are you aware of any general order on board the Eurydice for closing the main deck ports either at fixed times or in the event of had weather or sudden squalls ?—No.

Were the main deck ports the deck ports open or closed? Were the sashes open or closed?— The main deck ports were open except two—one each side; the sashes the starboard side were not shipped. I cannot say whether the lower half ports were closed or open. I had a conversation with some the men on the main deck that afternoon, and I had an opportunity of seeing that the ports on the main deck were open.

Did the ship complete taking in provisions at Bermuda ? I believe so.

Did she take in as much provisions as she could stow ?—I don’t know how much she took in. The provisions she took in were taken in at the last moment.

Hov long before you sailed from Bermuda did you take in your water supply ?—At the last moment.

Did you take any stores for conveyance to England? — Yes.

What did the stores comprise?— I saw some wire rigging and oilcans brought on board. I do not know where they stowed. Some were stowed on the lower deck during the passage. They were secured by cleats.

When the water tanks were empty on board the Eurydice were you in the habit of filling them up again with salt water?—No.

Was that ever done?—No.

Was there any alteration of the stowage of the ballast of the ship during the time you were in the ship?—None.

By the Court: After we left Bermuda restriction was was put on the use of water. During the time we were in commission we always wore white working rig. When Sen we wore a blue working rig, and this saved a great deal of water in washing.

What was the state of the weather on March 24 ?—Moderate up to 3 o’clock.

Was it squally or threatening ?—No; there was a steady breeze blowing. The sun shone brightly at times. I did not notice any clouds banking up.

Did the squall shrike you as having the appearance of an ordinary one ?—I was busy at the time, and did not notice.

Did yon notice when the ship first began to draw from under the land ?—No.

Had you yourself every confidence in the ship’s stability ? Yes.

What was the general feeling amongst the ship’s company as to her stability?—I do not know.

Did you ever hear any of the Crew express distrust as to her stabiiity ?—No.

Where did you last see the Captain, and what was be doing? -He was right aft on the bottom of the ship. He was standing still. The last words I heard him say were, “It is of no avail.” The standing rigging was wire, not rope. The topmast and topgallant rigging was also wire. When the squall struck the vessel nothing was carried away, to the best of my knowledge. I think I made a mistake with regard to the topgallant standing rigging. It was not wire, but rope.

Sydney Fletcher, Ordinary Seaman, was next called and sworn. The evidence which he gave at the coroner’s inquest, held at Ventnor on March 27, was read over to him. In his cross-examination he stated that the Mate of the main deck issued a general order that the ports should be closed when it was observed that a squall or bad weather was coming on. The provision-room filled at Bermuda.

Captain G. P. Polkinghorne produced a chart showing the position of her Majesty’s ship Eurydice at midnight on March 24 last, and the report made by witness to the Admiral Superintendent as to the position of the Eurydice when discovered by the Camel tug was put in and read.

Mr. R. B. Baker, retired Nautical Assessor of the Board of Trade, deposed that he wrote a letter to Admiral Fanshawe on March 25 last in which he stated ” Yesterday (Sunday, March 24) I was in the verandah of my house at 4pm., when the unfortunate vessel which has just foundered hove sight. I made her out to be a frigate under full sail, royals and also foretopmast and lower studdsails, with her yards braced well forward, on the port tack, wind then about N.W, ship heading about N.E. All the time squall was brewing from about N.N.W., thick and dense. I became interested, as the ship continued to carry the same sail. I saw the royal either taken in or something carried away. I supposed the latter, as it is unusual for men-of-war to take in any one royal at a time. After a few minutes the squall burst upon my house with considerable violence, accompanied by heavy drifting snow. It must have struck the ship in two or three seconds after, blew directly towards her. In about 10 or 15 minutes it cleared again, and the ship was not then in sight. My object in writing is to state facts, and may tend to exonerate the unfortunate Commander of the frigate. This squall did not to me appear to have much wind in it, but to be merely a heavy downfall of either rain or snow, and I think it was likely whoever was in charge of the deck of the frigate may have been deceived, as I was, particularly as the wind was light and the weather fine before the squall. It has struck me that any exoneration from carelessness may be gratifying to the friends of those in command or on duty at the time of the dreadful calamitv. I have no hesitation saying that the snowstorm clearly did not assume the appearance of such a gust of wind as followed it. The barometer had been falling; but the weather remained fine, and, consequently, was very deceptive. I thought they were to reduce sail in frigate fashion; but, unfortunately, if it was so, it was too late.”

Captain Carpenter: Was there anything in the configuration of the land to prevent those on board the Eurydice from seeing the squall ? I do not think so; it covered such a space, and was so dense. The squall must have been seen after the ship steamed out from Dunnose. I expected to see the vessel shorten sail; but I thought that those on board desired to take the sails in together smartly— frigate-like.

Admiral Robert Tryon deposed to seeing the Eurydice pass Ventnor on the afternoon of March 24 last. He noticed that her plain sail was set. There was a strong tide running against her, and though she might have been sailing at seven, yet she was not passing the land at more than four knots. The canvas the vessel was under was not more than she was justified in carrying, as there had been several snow squalls that morning off Ventnor unaccompanied by wind of any moment. When the Eurydice passed Ventnor there was a moderate breeze blowing off the land, the water was smooth, and the sun was shining brightly. Witness lost sight of the ship before the storm broke upon Ventnor, which it did shortly before 4 o’clock. A schooner passing Ventnor before the squall burst had hauled down her topsails.

Mr. James Chappel, Master of the Lord Vivian; Mr. Louttit, Master of the steamship Badger; and Mr. W. L. Jenkins, Master of the schooner Emma, deposed to being at sea on March 24, and struck by the squall which capsized the Eurydice. They were of opinion that those on board the Eurydice could not see the storm approaching they were too does inshore. The inquiry was then adjourned until this day (Wednesday).

Fig. 40 HMS Eurydice, 1843, deck

In passing, we might note that the reporting of the court-martial extended across the Britain.

THE EURYDICE COURT MARTIAL - Friday, August 30th, 1878

Glasgow Herald, 1878-08-30, p. 5

The Court Martial on the survivors of the Eurydice was resumed yesterday morning on board the flag-ship Duke of Wellington— Admiral Fanshawe presiding.

Benjamin Cuddeford, re-called, deposed that it ws the custom on board the Eurydice to serve out a fixed allowance of water each day. On the voyage froma Bermuda the use of water for washing clothes was restrieted. The number of washing days was reduced owing to a blue working suit being substituted for the white suit worn in harbour. He saw the port but not the starboard halyards let go when the ship was strck by the squall.

William Hicks, shipwright, diver, gave evidence as to the condition of the ports when he examined them. The starboard bow port was closed, the upper part of the second port, starboard side, was open and the lower half closed.

The whole of the morning was taken up with the evidence of divers as to the state of the ports on the starboard and port sides of the Eurydice when first examined. On the starboard side the guns had run out, and in the majority of cases the upper halves of the ports were open and swinging on their hinges, whilst the lower halves were closed and hooked in. The sashes were closed and the glass broken. The rudder when first observed had a slight cant to port. The evidence as to the state of the rigging wvas similar to that of Admiral Sir Francis McLintock, who expressed the opinion that the effects of the alterations made in the Eurydice in February, 1877, slightly increased the ship’s stability.

John Thomas, seaman diver, said he had observed some of the topsail halyard, sheets, and other ropes, which as a seaman he should expect to be let go in a squall, and he found that the foretopsail halyards had been let go on the port side, and it seemed as if a man had been in station to overhaul them, as some of a seaman’s clothes were found jammned in the halyards. He noticed the rudder, and found it hard aport as it lay over on the ground.

[EXTRACT : RAISING]

THE EURYDICE COURT MARTIAL. - Friday, August 30th, 1878

Manchester Evening News, 1878-08-30, p. 3

Portsmouth, FRIDAY.

The court re-assembled a quarter to 12 o’clock this morning on board the Duke Wellington flag ship, Admiral Fanshawe presiding. Mr. W. B. Robinson, chief constructor of the Portsmouth Dockyard, produced a store-book showing that the quantity of ballast carried by the Eurydice when in commission was about 30 tons. In 1854 and 1877 the ballast was stowed as low down possible the ship. Just before the Eurydice left Portsmouth on her last commission she had undergone a thorough repair by Mr. White, of Cowes, and when she left Portsmouth she was in every respect in good condition. Witness was then examined length respecting some apparent discrepancies his evidence of yesterday.

Two reports at the weekend explained how the court martial was held as a matter of course and succinctly reviewd events to date.

Evidence was described relating means for assessing the stability of the ship, and weather reports for the fateful day of the wreck were also reported as having been taken in evidence.

The Eurydice Court Martial. - Saturday, August 31st, 1878

Reading Mercury, 1878-08-31, p. 8

—The court-martial, which, by the rules of the Service, it was necessary to hold on the two survivors of H.M.S. Eurydice, was opened Tuesday before Admiral Fanshawe, on board the Duke of Wellington, flag ship. Both the survivors, Benjamin Cuddiford and Sidney Fletcher, stated that they were of opinion that everything had been done to secure the safety of the vessel. The masters of various craft which were off the Isle of Wight at the time of the occurrence were examined and said that the squall came on very suddenly, and that although they saw it in time to shorten sail, they believed those on board the Eurydice, from the position of the vessel, had not good an opportunity of knowing it was coming. The inquiry was then adjourned until Wednesday, when several witnesses were examined to the peculiarities of the fatal snow gale of the 24th of March. The inquiry was again adjourned.

THE EURYDICE COURT MARTIAL. - Saturday, August 31st, 1878

Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer, 1878-08-31, p. 5

The court assembled for the fourth time yesterday. Mr W. B.Robinson, Chief Constructor Portsmouth, was recalled and examined as to the ballast. As far the office records showed the quantity of ballast was about 30 tons.

Mr Nathaniel Barnaby, C.B., Director of Naval Construction, said the course taken in fitting the Eurydice as a training ship was to rig her in the same manner as had been rigged in her former commission, put in her the same amount of permanent ballast to reduce the armament, and to bring her to about the same draught of water as she had had before by a large quantity of provisions and stores. No calculations were made as to whether the ship at her low draught would be precisely the same as at any given period in a former commission ; but it was seen that the changes which were made could not reduce the stability of the ship or interfere with the proper performance of her duties. We had the reports of various officers who had commanded her, and in particular we knew that she had formed part of an experimental squadron in 1846 under Admiral Sir William Parker ; and that in reporting on the ships of that squadron—consisting of the Vanguard, Canopus, Albion, Rodney, Queen, Raleigh, Eurydice, Sparta, and Constance —he stated on August 22d, 1846, that all the ships displayed excellent sailing qualities and stability, and that the advantage was certainly with the Raleigh, followed closely by the Eurydice. There are other reports in papers before the court from Sir Wm. Parker and from other officers, and from a careful inspection of them I can find nothing contrary to the extract I have quoted. She was inclined under my diiection on May 11th, 1877, not for the purpose of discovering whether she was a stable ship, but as a matter of scientific interest, because so far as I know no sailing frigate or larger ship had ever been inclined in the history of the Royal Navy. Two small ships—the Rover and the Scylla—had been inclined many years ago, but they were corvettes of small size.

Was the fact of sailing ships not being inclined due to the circumstances the time that purely sailing ships were used in the navy ? Tne practice of inclining had not then been introduced.

Was there anything inherent in purely sailing ships which might render the process unnecessary? The reason must be the same which rules the present practice in the merchant navy. There are about five millions of tons of registered sailing ships in Great Britain, and is not the practice of any owners to incline their ships, although the process is simple and inexpensive.

Is it the practice of the Admiralty to incline modern steamships which are rigged for sailing ?—It Is the practice of the Admiralty to incline all modern and untried ships whether rigged or not, the reason being that there are great varieties of form and disposition of weights in modern ships. The’designer sets before himself a certain amount of stability as being desirable in order to make a new ship capable of bearing the stress of the sea and wind as other known ships which have given satisfaction to the naval officers who have tried them.

Would you consider it proper in the case of any future sailing ship being fitted out to adopt the practice now adopted by the Admiralty in reference to all modern ships, or the practice of the merchant service ? —If the ship were new we should do it as a matter of course. If she were old and tried ship like the Eurydice, we should undoubtedly do it for the purpose of adding to our stock of knowledge, and curve of stability for the Eurydice was calculated in my office, but I am not sure of the date when was made. It is now before the court. Using the term curve of stability in its ordinary sense, the calculations for it are made on the assumption that no ports or other openings occur which will let in water throngh the ship’s sides.

The court adjourned until this morning, when, after Robinson has been further examined on some points, the members will proceed to consider their judgment.

Fig. 41 HMS Eurydice, 1843

What are perhaps the most comprehensive reports of the Court continued to be provided by the Hampshire Telegraph.

More weather reports are desscribed, noting the freakish behaviour of the squall. Reports were also received fom the divers to the wreck describing the state of the ship, including the setting of the sails and the state of the ports, as they had witnessed them.

THE EURYDICE COURT-MARTIAL. - Saturday, August 31st, 1878

Hampshire Telegraph, 1878-08-31, p. 8

SECOND DAY.

On Wednesday morning the Court-Martial re-assembled on board the Duke of Wellington, flag-ship in Portsmouth Harbour, to inquire into the loss of Her Majesty’s ship Eurydice. The Court, as before, was composed of the following officers :-Admiral Edward G. Fanshawe,C.B., President; Captain the Hon. Walter Cecil Carpenter, H.M.S. Duke of Wellington; Captain Theodore Morton Jones, H.M.S. Asia; Captain William Arthur, H.M.S. Vernon; Captain James Elphinstone Erskine, H.M.S. Boadicea; Captain Edward Kelly, H.M.S. Cyclops ; Captain Duncan George Davidson, H.M.S. Serapis; Captain Charles James Brownrigg, H.M.S. Euphrates ; and Captain George Parsons, H.M.S. Jumna. George P. Martin, Esq., barrister-at-law, officiated as Deputy-Judge-Advocate of the Fleet.

The inquiry, we may repeat, embraces all matters connected with the stability of the ship.

On the re-assembling of the Court on Wednesday morning, Captain Thomas Keith Hudson, Royal Navy, was called, and said on the day that the Eurydice was lost he was at Gurnard (near Cowes, Isle of Wight). Up to 3.30 that day the weather had been unusually fine, with bright sunshine and pleasant breeze from about N.N.W. On looking towards Hurst Castle he saw what appeared him to be a fog bank gathering over the Hampshire coast, and finally obscuring the Solent. He was surprised to find so unusual an appearance following the day’s bright sunshine, and he looked at the barometer, which he found had fallen about two-tenths of an inch. Presently the fog bank declared itself in a snow storm, though the wind at first was not of much moment. Within two or three moments there came a most violent gust, and that at a time when he apprehended the squall to have attained its full force. The snow flakes attained an unusual size, and falling in one blinding mass, rendered what should have been near objects invisible. In about ten minutes the wind had the lulled to its former moderate force, and the sun came out brightly as before, but the temperature, which had previously given no indication of approaching snow, had now become icy cold.—Q.: Will you state, as a sailor, what sail you would have considered it necessary to take in under those circumstances, with a ship in full sail, with a moderate breeze abeam ?—I should say that the first part of the squall would only call for the handling of the lighter canvas, such as royals and studdingsails. He might have taken in sail under the circumstances had he, on board ship, had the same uninterrupted view which was afforded him by being 120 feet above the level of the sea. In a ship two miles out to sea he did not think the appearances would be such as to lead him to expect a serious squall. Even from his elevated position he never anticipated the violence of the gust.— By Captain Carpenter: When the violent gust occurred, it did not enter my mind as being likely to be dangerous to a ship.

Captain William Arthur, of H.M.S. Vernon (a member of the Court), was next sworn as a witness. He said on the day in question he left his house between three and the four pm. to walk across the fields towards Park View. When part of the way over he looked to the northward and observed a snow storm coming on. At first he contemplated returning, but from the misty appearance of the snow cloud he did not consider the squall would be heavy, so he contintued on his way. Shortly before reaching the farm a moderate squall with light eddying snow set in. He took shelter, and immnediately afterwards a very heavy squall of wind and snow came down, lasting for ten or fifteen minutes, and then ceased as suddenly as it had commenced. He came to the conclusion that the first squall accompanied by light snow had hidden the lower second, and made the remark that it would go hard withany ship in the Channel which should be deceived by the squall as he had been. The squall was from the N.N.W., and his house was situated 13 miles due north from the scene of the wreck. The day, up to the time of the squall, was remarkably fine, and the wind had been in the same direction. From the time he first observed its approach to the time the snow storm burst could not have been more than ten minutes. The cloud, which he observed more particularly after it had passed over, was remarkably black, but in its approach to him it was obscured by the light, drifting snow which preceded it. He looked at the barometer before the squall had passed over, and found it had fallen considerably since the morning, certainly moew than one-tenth.

By Captain Jones: Had you been at sea would you have considered this a squall of unusual severity ?—As I said before, I was deceived as to its severity. It would, however, have induced me to look at the barometer, and have taken precautions had I found any great fall to have taken place.

By Captain Erskine : It is difficult to estimate the force of the, squall, but I should say about 10.

Mr. Robert Bell, principal clerk at the Admiralty, authenticated two letters from the Admiralty containing information with regard to observations made of the squall by the Astronomer Royal, corroborating the evidence which had been given by the various witnesses as to the characteristics of the squall.

Staff-Captain C. J. Polkinghorne was re-called. He said as Master-Attendant of the Dockyard he had been employed, when his duties did not call him elsewhere, in superintending the operations of raising the wreck of the Eurydice. He received orders to cause the divers and others employed to observe as far as possible the position of the main deck ports, lower deck scuttles, sheets, and halyards, and the position of any weights which might be liable to be removed by the persons who first observed each of those several objects. He gave Staff-Captain Dathan, Assistant Master-Attendant, who was constantly at the wreck, a copy of those orders, and he was also aware that the divers collectively and individually were instructed to pay particular attention to the condition of the ports and scuttles, and also to observe what ropes had been let go.

Staff-Captain Joseph C. Dathan, Assistant Master-Attendant of Portsmouth Dockyard, said he had been employed in that capacity during the whole of the operations for raising the wreck. He proved receiving the the orders referred to by Captain Polkinghorne from that officer. The divers examined the main deck ports from time to time as opportunity offered, and also the lower deck scuttles. The sheets, halyards, and other ropes were reported on daily as the work progressed. As to the water tanks, they had no opportunity of examining them yet till within the last day or two. The reports were made to him immediately after the observations were made. He arrived at the wreck on the 25th March, and found her with main and topgallantsails set, mizenroyal furled, main royalmast carried away, and main royal hanging before the topgallantsail. Her foretopgallantmast had gone short off at the cap head, the jib and the topmaststaysail were set. At three a.m. everything had disappeared above water, owing to the rising of the tide. The tide was then running S.W., about four knots. At slack water the wreck came up and showed the same above water as before. At ten o’clock the same morning Mr. Farrell, Master Rigger, arrived at the wreck with a party of riggers. On the following day witness returned to the wreck, when the divers cut away the main course, and the upper yards, and unshacked the main tack which was made fast, also unshacked the main sheet, and stopped the clew to the main rigging. The sheet was flowing, but whether it was let go or not he could not say. Whether the top halyards were let go or not he could not say, but the yard was close up. When the wreck was first observed, every sail was set and full. The lee clew was encumbered by a sail, believed to be the lower studdingsail and the divers could not get at it. The jib and topmast staysails were cut away by the divers, but whether or not the sheets were fast he could not give any satisfactory answer. He noted at the time that the wreck was heeling about 15 degrees to starboard, but he had since had reason to believe that it was considerably more. The lower boom was out as if the lower studdingsails had just been taken in.

Captain Henry Anthony Trollope, Royal Navy, said he wrote a letter to the President, enclosing a statement of his observation of the squall. In his letter he stated that on the Sunday afternoon in question he was walking under the lee of the north wall of his garden, about six miles from Salisbury, the weather being clear and fine, with a moderate breeze. About ten minutes past three, without any warning, the squall suddenly burst over the house, almost like a clap of thunder. The fury of the squall lasted about five minutes. On speaking to a gamekeeper a few days afterwards, he stated that he the never knew anything to equal the suddenness and fury of the squall. He was walking in a lane, but quickly got into an open field as he was afraid the trees were going to be rooted up.— Continuing his evidence, Capt. Trollope said there were no indications of the coming of the squall until it burst upon him. The north wall of his garden and a high belt of trees would impede his view of an approaching storm. Snow began to fall before the actual squall burst.

The Court then adjourned for luncheon. On re-assembling,

Captain Polkinghorne was recalled. He said he had been in the habit of noting the barometer every four hours. On March 23rd the reading was :-Noon, barometer. 29.90 ; thermometer 43; wind N. and by W., fresh ; 4 p.m., barometer, 29.84; thermometer. 40; wind N.N.W, fresh; midnight, barometer 29.76; thermometer, 34; wind, N.N.W. fresh, squalls of snow. March 24th. 8 a.m., barometer, 29.68; thermometer, 34; wind, N.N.W. fresh, with squalls; noon, barometer 29.52; thermometer, 37; wind N. and by W., strong and squally ; p.m.weather threatening; 4 o’clock, very heavy squall from the northward, with snow, barometer 29.60; thermometer, 34. Up to 7 a.m., the 25th, there was no further fall in the barometer. It remained stationary until the time mentioned and then rose rapidly, and by noon had risen to 29.81.

Mr. John Farrell, master rigger, of Portsmouth Dockyard, said he was employed at the wreck of the Eurydice on the day following that on which she capsized. He was only present for a short time then. On arriving at the wreck he found that the upper sails were being cleared away by Mr. Hardy, Assistant Queen’s Harbour Master. He had no opportunity observing the sheets and halyards that would be likely to be let go in case of a sudden squall. It was partly cleared away before he arrived.

Mr. Joseph Samuel Harding, Assistant Queen’s Harbour Master and Admiralty Pilot, said he was employed at the wreck of the Eurydice shortly after she sank. He observed what sheets and halyards had been let go. He observed that the fore topgallantmast had carried away. The royals had been clewed up, the mizen royal had one gasket passsed round it. The mizen topsail yard was on the cap, the mizen topgallant yard was about half-way down the mast. The starboard mizen topgallant sheet was carried away. The spanker was apparently brailed up. The main topgallant sail was still set, with the sheets fast. The main topsail yard was close up under the cat harpines. Both main topsail sheets were foul. The port main topsail halyards had been let go. The starboard foretopsail sheet had also been let go. The port one was fast. The port foretopsail halyard was also let go, but the yard was still close up in its place, He sent a diver down to unshackle the main sheet, but he could not tell him whether it had been let go. The foretopmast studdingsail was clowed up or tripped up and hauled close up under the studdingsail yard, but the foretopmast studdingsail halyards were still fast.— How was it you ascertained that the maintopsail sheets and the starboard foretopsail sheets were let go ?—I had them hauled by hand into it boat in which I was superintending the work.— Were the fore amd maintopsail ties rove on a bight, or were there two separate ties to each yard?— My recollection does not serve me sufficiently to answer. He knew the spanker and was brailed up, because it was about six or eight feet out of water -Did you take any steps to see whether the starboard fore and mnaintopsail halyards had been let go?— Yes. I had them examined, and found they were quite taut, from which I inferred they were fastened on deck.

By Captain Carpenter: I cannot say whether the weather clew of the mainsail was set, as the mainsail was not taken away for some days afterwards.

By Captain Jones : I am speaking of the state of the ship as she was when she went down, as I was with the first party that went out. The jib was hanging under the lee of the foretopsail, with the stay all in a bight, by which I concluded the jibboom had carried away.

The President: The jibboom was afterwards reeported by the direiors to have been broken off about the middle.

By Captain Brownrigg: The yards were laid, I should say, for the wind about four points on the port quarter.

Mr. Bell, re-called, produced a letter from the Admiralty to the Commander-in-Chief of the North America station, asking for a return of the stores on board the Eurydice at the time she left Bermuda, and a copy of such report, stating that the estimated weight of the stores was approximately 14 tons. He also produced copies of the log of the Eurydice from the 22nd of May, 1877, to the 22nd of February, 1878. He also produced an Admiralty letter, dated May, 1878, enclosing ten reports on the sailing qualities of the Eurydice, the amended designs of the ship, and other details for the information of the Court.

The Court then adjourned until the following morning.

THIRD DAY.

On the Court opening on Thursday, Benjamin Cuddeford was re-called. He said before he went to sea to Bermuda the ship’s company were placed on a daily allowance of water. Every morning a quarter of an hour after the hands had been turned up, the gunner’s mate of the main deck piped cooks of messes to muster at tanks for washing-water. A fixed allowance was served out, about half a tub full per mess for washing hands, and a large tub full for each mess to wash clothes with, twice a week. Before they arrived at Bermuda they wore a white working rig, which necessitated two washings a week, but after leaving on the homeward voyage the crew wore a blue working rig, which only caused one washing day a week, consequently only half the amount of usual washing-water was issued after the ship left Bermuda. The water used for washing hands and faces was the same. The wire hawser, which they were bringing home as stores, was stowed on the sail bin amidships. The after sail bin had no stores on it. It was cushioned, and used as a couch by the officers. The bin opened by two trap doors, one in the fore, and one in the after end.

By Captain Carpenter : I cannot give any idea of how much water was issued on wash-clothes day. There was one big tubful for each mess. There were 27 messes altogether. The fore maintopsail yards were fitted with starboard and port topsail ties and halyards, the port halyards single, and the starboard double-two ties. They were not fitted on the bight.

The President : Were the starboard maintopsail halyards let go on deck at the time of the squall ?—I don’t know. I only saw the port halyards let go.— Was the foretopmast studdingsail tack started before you lost sight of the ship ?—I cannot say. It was my station to let it go, but I did not do so.

Captain Brownrigg: The foretopmast studdingsail was fitted with a short sheet, a deck sheet and down-haul tack, and tripping line. The tripping line was rove through a block of the yard arm; a thimble in the belly of the sail made fast to the clew of the sail. It was not the custom to take in the topmast studdingsail abaft all, but before all.

Captain Dathan, re-called, said he could not tell whether the foretopmast studding sail was set with the tack hauled out when be first saw it. He only saw half-way down the sail. The sail was set full, and seemed complete.

By Captain Parsons: We could only see a portion of the spanker, but it seemed fully set.

William Hicks, shipwright diver, belonging to Portsmouth Dockyard, said he observed the state of the starboard bow port of the Eurydice. He found it closed. It was closed permanently, fearnoughted, and leaded round the joints on the outside. He was the first person who observed the second port on the starboard side. The port was opened, the buckler closed, and hooked in. That was, the upper half-port open, and the lower half closed. The sashes were closed, and the glass broken in. The sashes were in two parts-upper and lower. All the glasses were broken, but the wooden framework was not. No. 4 port on the starboard side was open-or rather the upper half of it. The lower half was closed and hooked in. The sashes were closed, and the glass broken. He was the first to see those ports. He did not see No. 5 port on the starboard side first. Another diver saw it before him. The upper part of No. 5 port was opened. He thought the sashes were open. No. 6 port on the same side was the gun port. The upper half-port was swinging, but the lower half was gone, and the muzzle of the gun was run out on to the ground. No. 8 port was another gun port, and was in precisely the same state as No. 6, the other gun port on the starboard side. He observed a small square scuttle abaft No. 9 port. It was open. It had been an old port, but a cabin was made there, so that it was done away with, and permanently fastened in-the lower half of it— and a sliding sash fitted to the upper part of it. The sash was closed, and the glass broken. No. 9 port was fitted the same as No. 11, and was in all respects similar to it.

Thomas McCullock, shipwright diver, of Devonport Dockyard, said he saw No. 2 port on the starboard side. The lower buckler was closed, and the half-port swinging. The glass was broken out of the sashes, but they were closed. No. 9 port had the lower buckler closed and caulked in. The upper part was open, and the glass was broken out of the sashes, which were apparently closed.

By Captain Brownrigg: I did not notice the tell-tale on and of the wheel.

John Thomas, diver in the employ of Messrs. Siebe and Gorman, submarine engineers, of London, saw No. 3 port on the starboard side. The upper half was hanging loose from the hinges, and the lower buckler was fast and hooked in. The sashes were closed. The glass of the foremost sash had been burst in. He saw the foretopsail halyards on the port side had been let go, and a man was stationed there, apparently overhauling, as he found his clothes jamnmed in the halyard. He did not observe whether the jigger had been taken off the weather topsail lips. He saw by the rudder that the helm was hard-a-starboard. The rudder was over to port. He went to the helm and found that he could not get any more starboard helm. No. 7 port on the starboard side was in the same condition as No. 3 with regard to the upper part.

Robert Jenkins, shipwright diver, of Sheerness Dockyard, said he found the upper part of No. 7 port on the starboard side hanging apparently by its hinges. The lower half was shut and hooked in. The sashes were closed, but the glass was unbroken. He did not think the hinges of the upper half of the port were broken.

Frank Davis, diver in the employ of Messrs. Siebe and Gorman, said the scuttle marked 12 on the plan was opened and triced up in the ordinary way, square. Nos. 6 and 8 ports on the port side contained the guns. Both ports were closed and secured in. He and another diver cut them open, and found the guns secured for sea, with the no muzzle-lashings on and no tonkins in. The muzzles of the guns were close up to the ports and all the tackle was tight. When he went down on the Sunday that one of the jewels carried away the rudder was amidships.

George Hardy, rigger diver, belonging to Portsmouth Dockyard, said he went out to the wreck at the first. The topsails, topgallantsails, and coarses were set, with topgallant sheets gone, and also the topsail sheets, all but the lee mizen-sheet, which was fast. The foretopmast studdingsail, port side, had the tack gone. The main sheet and the main tack were gone. The port fore tack was fast. The spanker was set, and he went down and cut the out-haul. The foretopgallantmast was gone off to the “jack.” When he cut the out-haul of the spianker it was not hauled close out. The jibboom had been carried away.

By Captain Carpenter: I knew the foretopmast studdingsail tack had been carried away, because we overhauled it.—Captain Jones : How far were the topgallant sheets from being home? —It’s impossible to say.— Are you positive they were let go ?—To the best of my recollection they were.— Had the spanker brails been hauled up ?—No. No one else had been down previously to my making these observations.

William Henry Smith, rigger diver, of Portsmouth Dockyard, said that he was one of the divers employed at the wreck. He found the telltale of the rudder hard-a-port, but the rudder hard-a-starboard, The false keel was off.

Admiral Sir Francis Leopold M’Clintock, F.R.S., said he was Admiral-Superintendent of Portsmouth Dockyard from April, 1875, to April, 1877. During that time the alteration of the Eurydice, 26-gun frigate, to adapt her to a training ship was at various times considered by the Dockyard authorities. Orders were sent from the Admiralty to take the subject under consideration and make a report during the spring of 1875.—Will you state the general nature of the proposals made and the points considered by the Dockyard officers during their consideration of these proposals, with the view to securing the maintenance of the necessary amount of stability ?—The Dockyard officers were first called upon to report the largest number of men they could accommodate, also whether the ship could carry seven 64-pounder guns, one being a revolving one. The question of stability was not alluded to at this early stage. Before forwarding drawings they would not consider the effect which the alterations would have upon the stability of the ship, unless the changes called for any special remark. The question of the stability of ships is dealt with in the Comptroller’s Office and not in the Dockyards.—Then would it be the case that in forwarding the plans dated in 1875 and those dated in February, 1877, which last were based upon some recommendations by Captain Hare, referred to the Dockyard officers, these plans would not necessarily convey the warrant of the Dockyard officers with regard to their effect upon stability ?—When the ship is nearly ready for sea her stability is usually tested by an officer sent down from the Comptroller’s Office, at the Admiralty. There was nothing in the alterationa in the Eurydice to give rise to any apprehension that her stability would be diminished.—Therefore, so far as you recollect, no special exceptional consideration was given to the question of stability whilst the alterations in the Eurydice were under consideration ?—No, I think it would have been quite unnecessary.— I may mention the ship was inclined to ascertain her centre of gravity when ready for sea. but I understand you to say no special previous calculations had been made to your knowledge during the preparation of the ship?— None previously.

Captain Erskine: Are you able to state from knowledge gained since, or calculations made, whether the stability of the Eurydice was increased by the alterations made ?— Witness : No. I can only give a practical opinion. So far as I could judge, without going into any scientific explanation, by barely increasing her complement, the stowage of provisions and water, and at the same time reducing her armament, when she had three months’ provisions on board she had more weight in her, which was placed lower in the vessel, than when she was employed as a man-o’-war, consequently I am of opinion that her stability was somewhat increased by the alteration.

The President: Is there any other information you can give likely to throw light as to her stability beyond what of you have already stated ?—I have nothing further to add respecting her stability.

The Court then adjourned for luncheon. On re-assembling,

Mr. W. B. Robinson, Chief Constructor of Portsmouth Dockyard, verified some Admiralty documents relating to the motacentric height of the Eurydice, her centre of gravity in load condition, the probable position of her centre of gravity in 1854, drawing for her alterations recommended by Captain Hare, a report on the extra stowage of water, bringing it up to 105 tons, and also a report of the ranges of stability of the Seaflower and Liberty, as called for by Admiral Fanshawe.

The President : Were you engaged at various times between the beginning of 1875 and May, 1877, in considering in and carrying ut plans which the Admiralty had ordered foradapting the Eurydice as a training ship ?—Yes.—Will you state to the Court in detail, referring to the orders you received, the principal points you found it necessary to consider, and the alterations you recommended, describing particularly such steps as were taken to ensure the maintenance of stability?—Mr. Robinson produced a letter setting forth the various alterations which were to be made to adapt the Eurydice to a training-brig, and added that no proposals then made were considered to affect the question of the stability of the ship injuriously. Therefore no remarks were made upon the subject.—From the time the proposal and plans were transmitted were any other changes proposed or adopted until Captain Hare’s suggestions were made and the plans of February, 1877, drawn in accordance with them after your inspection of them ?—I have no record of any, and I remember none.—Was there not afterwards while the ship was fitting out, an alteration made by which the sail rooms were removed and watertanks stowed in their place, the sails being stowed in bins on the lower deck, with the view to increasing the quantity of water stowed on board?— The question of increasing the quantity of water is referred to in Captain Hare’s letter of the 15th February, 1877, and on March 2nd the Comptroller of the Navy sent a letter stating that the alteration was made in view of the increased quantity of water proposed by amended drawings just forwarded. More than 68 1/2 tons should be carried if possible. A condensing gallery could not be fitted. Then the Snider magazine, having been placed further forward in what was part of the ship’s magazine, the space it was thought might be utilised for tanks. Subsequently plans were sent with the following letter:—

Portsmouth Yard,
Chief Constructor’s Department,
7th March, 1877.
SIR,-We have the honour to forward herewith for approval a plan of the hold of the Eurydice, showing proposed alterations, by which 105 tons of water may be stowed. To effect this it is proposed to remove the sailroom from its present position and fix sail lookers in lieu, as shown in plan of lower deck, on which they are built to a height of three feet. Estimates previously forwarded for alteration of hold will moot this.
We have the honour, &c.,
W. B. ROBINSON,,Chief Constructor.
J. ELLIOT, Constructor.

That order carries the water up to 105 tons but the Eurydice is stated to have stowed 117 tons.—I believe additional room for tanks was found, and she had thus a greater quantity stowed.— Without recoking small and monor fittings, was any other alteration of weights made befoe the ship was complete for sea?—I believe not.— Do you recollect if there was a difference in her establishment of boats?— I am not in any way aware that the boats were unusual for a ship of her class. In 1854 seven boats were carried, and in 1877 nine.—Was the Eurydice inclined to ascertain her centre of gravity after the alterations had been made, and her weights got on board?—Yes. She was inclined on the 9th of May, 1877.—Do you know what was the position of the centre of gravity then ascertained ?—Yes ; from a drawing and letters already before the Court. It was found to had have been 9ft. 4in. above the water-line when the ship was in a fully-equipped condition and floating at a mean draught of 16ft. 7 1/2 in.— Did you recently make a calculation for the information of the Court based upon the centre of gravity thus ascertained by inclination, to ascertain approximately her former center of gravity, by allowing for the moment all weights removed or added ?— Yes, and the particulars are given in documents produced, by which it may be seen that the probable position of the centre of gravity of the ship in 1854, when fully equipped, was coincident with that made in 1877.— Is the height of the centre of gravity 2ft. 4in. above the water-line unusual ?—I think not, since the position of the centre of gravity in relation to the whole depth of the ship should be considered as well as the water-line. The Eurydice having a deep keel and hollow floor would naturally place the centre of gravity high in relation to the water-line, bearing in mind the comparatively small draught of the ship.— Would not that occasion a high metacentre also?— Under some conditions, yes.— If the metacentric height of the Eurydice, is 4ft 6in., would that, considered with the centre of gravity, appear to you favourable to stability?—I consider it a fair height.—Is it your opinion that the drawing of the curve of stability of the Eurydice before the Court is a fair amount of stability?— I think so. I believe we have but two records of wooden ship sailing ships’ curves of stability having been calculated, and these are before the Court—those of the Seaflower and the Liberty. I have always heard that the Seafolower and Liberty have high characters as seagoing sailing vessels, and from all points of view the Eurydice, in my opinion, possesses qualities assuring to her also the high character which I believe she has always borne.—Would you compare the curve of stability of the Seaflower and Eurydice, and say what difference you find between them?— The Seaflower’s maximum height of stability is reached at 30 degs., with a range of 72 1/4, and the Eurydice’s maximum is reached at 41 2/4, with a range of 72 1/2 degrees, where her stability vanishes.— Have you any reason to believe that any difference existed between the stability of the Eurydice as a frigate, and the Eurydice as a training-ship?— I think none practically existed. I may say that in my own mind I had a doubt about the weight of iron rigging which the ship had in her last commission and the rope of the former commission, but I resolved the doubt by actually weighing specimens of iron rope and hempen. This experiment bore out the accuracy of the printed tables, which show the iron rope to be somewhat lighter than hempen.— Did you, for the information of this Court, make a detailed comparison between the weights removed, and put on board during the alterations, based upon the returns 211 for 1854 and 1877?— Yes. The summary for 1854 showed the total on the form 211 to be 600 tons 7 cwt. The deductions were 97 tons 4 cwt., making a correct total of 503 tons 3 cwt. The sumrmary for 1877 showed the total, 452 tons 3 cwt.; additions, 12 tons 5cwt.; correct total, 464 tons 8 cwt. Deducting that from 513 tons 3cwt., and it left a difference of 38 tons 15cwt., which was equal to about 3 1/2 inches displacement at the water-line.— Do you believe that to be a close approximation to the weights actually on board at the two epochs?— As close as can he ascertained from documents which do not purport to be records of actual weights.—If the Eurydice had her ordinary weights as a training ship on board, but had expended 18 days’ provisions, and half her water, but had 14 tons of extra stores placed at various uncertain vertical distances below her centre of gravity, would her stability, in your opinion, be in any degree unduly compromised ?—I think not.— Are there any further observations that you could make that you think would be useful to the Court in considering the state of the Eurydice as to her stability ?—I do not now see that I can make any useful observations further on the subject.

Captain Arthur : Would not the fact that the mean draught of water in 1877 was only 1 1/2 inches less than in 1854 lead you to the belief that your estimate of the relative weights carried was tolerably accurate ?—Yes, and I would add that all the comparisons of weights referred to in my letter of 19th July were completed before it was observed how nearly they checked the draught of the water.— The draught being the same, and the centre of gravity nearly corresponding in each case, would not the curve of stability be almost similar ?—Yes.— Captain Davidson: Can you explain to us in general terms as to the means by which the reduction of the weight of armament and ammunition carried in the Eurydice, from 109 tons, in 1854, to 213 tons, in 1877, as in the returns before the Court, was intended to be counteracted?— The full answer to this question will be found in papers and drawings before the Court, from which it will be seen that the powder, shot, and shell belonging to the larger number of guns in 1854 gave a very large moment to the centre of gravity.

Benjamin Cuddeford, re-called, said the guns of the Eurydice were secured at sea by being run in aboard, and held in position. They were so secured on the day the ship foundered.

FOURTH DAY.

On the Court resuming yesterday (Friday) morning, at a quarter to twelve,

Mr W. B. Robinson, Chief Constructor at Portsmouth, was re-called.

The President: In the forms 211 and the returns of sailing qualities of the Eurydice a difference appears of about 40 tons of ballast. From 1852 to 1854, or about between those dates, she has 69 tons 16cwt. shown. At all other times 30 tons is shown. Can you point out any reason for that difference? -Referring to my letter of the 19th July, 1878, on page 8, I have given this explanation : ” In a book found amongst other books in the Dockyard there appears this entry, under the name Eurydice, ‘40 tons of ballast, supplied 10th June, 1852, and returned into store 20th April, 1854.’ This fact may be explained by the circumstance that formerly ballast was put on board ships in ordinary to prevent them when otherwise light from hogging. The forty tons were probably included in the 1854 return, and the actual quantity carried was probably the 29 tons 16cwt. 3qrs. I, of course, mean that the 40 tons to was probably included in error in the 1854 return.”— In the custody of which department of the Dockyard was that the book put, and do you know its office title ?—It was found before the sinking of the Eurydice by an officer in my department among old records, which were ordered to be examined with a view to useless records being got rid of. The records were in the store-house, and the book wasmarked “Ballast Book,” I believe. I do not know whether the book was destroyed; I can produce it if required.— Either in that or any other book is there a record of that ballast being returned in 1854?—It would be in a store note, but I am not aware of notes existing so long.— Then as far as the records in office show, the quantity of ballast always carried by the Eurydice when at sea, when in commission, including her late commission as training-ship, was 30 tons or thereabouts ?—Yes, I believe so.— What was the general condition of the Eurydice as to repairs and fittings, and effectiveness, so far as concerned the Constructor’s Department, when she passed out of the Dockyard hands in 1877?—She had just undergone a thorough repair at Mr. White’s, at Cowes, and when she left Portsmouth in a complete state, as a training-ship, she was every respect in good condition. — Do you know whether the stowage of the ballast was altered, when fitted as a training-ship, from what it was previously ?—I believe in both 1854 and 1877 the ballast was stowed as near as possible similarly, and as low down as possible in the ship.

Captain Arthur: I observe in the returns of the reports of the sailing qualities of the Eurydice between 1854 and 1877 that the ballast is described as being stowed as follows: “The ballast was stowed in the after part of the fore hatchway to the chain lockers, and two pigs abreast of the chain lockers to the after part of the after hold.”—Would not this description apply equally to the stowage of the ballast during her las commission, and lead to the conclusion that the amount was the same in each case?—The drawings showing the ship’s fittings show the ballast as being 30 tons, composed of ballast and iron limbers. The drawings do not show the arrangement of the pigs of ballast, and would not show the arrangement of the ballast.— With reference to your answer, in which you state that there was a mean difference of only 3 1/2 inches between her draught as a frigate and a training vessel, will you say whence you obtained the mean of the two draughts compared ?—The Court are under a misapprehension. In my letter of the 19th July, 1878, and the details regarding the forms 211 for 1854 and 1877 I have endeavoured to point out how conflicting statements on those forms can be explained, and I have pointed out that 97 tons 4 cwt. should probably be deducted from the form 211 of 1854, and that 12 tons 5 cwt. should probably be added to the return of 1877, but that the draughts of water in 1854 and 1877 nearly agree; there still is a difference of 13 tons 13 cwt. which cannot be accounted for. This equals about 3 1/2 inches of draught of water.— In comparison of forms 211 three draughts are given-two of 1854, one of which is in red ink, and noted as the draught of boats and anchors stowed and powder not on board, and another in black ink, which shows a slightly increased draught. The third is the draught of 1877, also in red ink, dated 22nd of May, in which it is noted that the powder, shot, and shell were on board. Which two of these are the ones compared ?—It will be that in blaok ink in each case.— The black ink one in 1854 shows a draught forward of 16 ft. 3in., and aft 17ft and that of 1877 gives a her a draught forward of 16ft., and aft 17 ft. What would be the mean difference of the draught?—I would ask to correct my statement. The red ink were the figures taken in 1854, and not the black ink ones, but there is but an inch as and a-half difference.— Further on in your answer to a question you state that the corrected total of weights carried in 1854 was 503 tons 2cwt. 3qrs. 131bs. Does that include her powder and shell, and is the powder and shell included in the corrected total weight of 1877-viz., 464 tons 9cwt. 1qr. 19lbs. ?—In 1854 the powder was not on board when the ship had a draught of 15ft. 11in., and 17ft. 1 in., as stated at the end of the form. The powder and shell is included in that for 1877, as also stated in the form.— Witness here produced the ballast book previously referred to. It was styled, “Iron ballast book,” in which was the following entry :-“Eurydice, 29 tons 16cwt. 0qr. 18lbs. supplied 10th June, 1852. 280 pigs, at 7 per ton, equal to 40 tons. Note-Returned into store 20th April, 1854.” The history of the Eurydice, as supplied by the Admiralty, was produced by the witness, and showed that the ship was laid up in ordinary until 1850, when she was put in hand for small repairs until 1852, and was commissioned in May, 1854, by Captain Erasmus Ommanney. That was when the ballast was returned out of the ship to the Dockyard.

Mr. Nathaniel Barnaby, C.B., Director of Naval Construction, was next called.

The President: It was stated by Sir Leopold McClintock, who was Admiral Superintendent of Portsmouth Dockyard when the alterations in the Eurydice, frigate, to adapt her as a training ship were considered, that the especial question of stability was especially consiered at the Comptroller’s Office at the Admiralty. Would you therefore inform the Court as to the steps taken to ensure the maintenance of stability during the consideration of those alterations?— The course taken for fitting the ship as a training ship was to rig her in the same manner as she had been rigged in her former commission: put in her the same amount of permanent ballast as she had had, to reduce the armament, and to bring her to about the same draught of water as she had had before, by a larger quantity of provisions and stores. No calculations were made as to whether the ship at her low draught would be precisely the same at any given period in a former commission, but it was seen that the changes which were made could not reduce the stability of the ship, or interfere with the proper performance of her duties.—What was the nature of the information possessed in your department as to the qualities of the ship at and for the time she was selected as a training ship?— We had the reports of the various officers who had commmanded her, and in particular we knew that the ship formed part of an of experimental squadron in 1846, under Admiral Sir William Parker, and that in reporting on the ships of that squadron, consisting of the Vanguard, Canopus, Albion, Rodney, Queen, Raleigh, Eurydice, Spartan, and Constance, he reported that on the 22nd of August, 1846, all the ships displayed excellent sailing qualities and stability, but the advantage was certainly with the Raleighm followed closely by the Eurydice.—Did Admiral Parker make any other report of the Eurydice as to her sailing qualities?—There are other reports in papers before the Court from Sir William Parker, and from other officers, and from a careful inspection of them I can find nothing contrary to the extract I have quoted.—When the Eurydice was fully prepared for the sea as a training-ship, was she inclined, to ascertain the position of her centre of gravity, under your direction?— She was inclined under my direction on 11th May, 1877, not for the purpose of discovering whether she was a stable ship, but as a matter of scientific interest, because, so far as I knew, no sailing frigate or larger ship had ever been inclined in the history of the Royal Navy. Two small ships, the Rover and Scylla, had been inclined many years ago, but they were corvettes of small size.— Was the fact of sailing ships not being inclined due to the circumstance that at the time purely sailing ships were in the Navy the practice of inclining had not been introduced, or was there anything inherent in purely sailing ships which might render that process unnecessary? -The reason must be the same as that which rules the present practice in the Merchant Navy. There are about 5,000,000 tons of registered sailing ships in Great Britain, and it is not the practice of any owners to incline their ships, although the process is simple and inexpensive.—Is it the practice of the Admiralty to incline modern steam ships which are rigged for sailing?— It is the practice of the Admiralty to incline all modern and untried ships, whether rigged or not, the reason being that there are great varieties of form and disposition of weights in modern ships, and the designer sets before himself a certain amount of stability as being desirable, in order to make the new ship as capable of bearing the stress of sea and wind as other known ships which have given satisfaction to the officers who have tried them. -Would you consider it proper in the case of any future sailing ships being fitted out to adopt the practice now adopted by the Admiralty with reference to all modern ships, or the practice in the Merchant Service ?—If the ship were new we should do it as a matter of course. If she were an old and a tried ship like the Eurydice we should undoubtedly do it, for the purpose of adding to our stock of knowledge.— The curve of stability for the Eurydice was calculated in your office for the use of this Court, was it not ?—The curve of stability for the Eurydice was calculated in my office, bnt I am not sure of the date when it was made. It is, however, now before the Court.—Using the term curve of stability in its ordinary sense, are then calculations for it made on the supposition that no ports or other openings occur which will let in water through the ship’s side ?—That is the assumption.—Referring to the curve of stability of the Eurydice, a red line is drawn representing what the curve would be if the ports were open. Was that drawn to illustrate the effect in the Eurydice in case of the ports being open?—Yes; the two curves-one in black and the other in red-show that when the ship is at her load line the lower port sills would enter the water at about 16 1/2 degrees, and that the stability of the ship would go on increasing if the ports were shut up to about 40 degrees. That is, her resistance to inclination is a growing resistance, while obviously the upsetting force on the sails is lessening. The facts may, perhaps, be illustrated by saying that the black curve belongs to a ship of 11ft., or 12ft. freeboard, and the red curve belongs to a ship of 4ft. freeboard, the Eurydice being transformed from one to the other by opening the lee ports.—Will you inform the Court as to the general condition of the Eurydice when her outfit ways completed as a training-ship, in all that concerns the Comptroller’s Department, so far as is shown by the records there ?—Of my own knowledge I can give no information. The ship was inspected as soon as she was complete by the late Commander-in-Chief at Portsmouth (Sir George Elliot), who was her first Captain, and the son of her designer, and we had every reason to believe, from his and the other official reports, that if ship had been completely fitted, and satifactorily.—Are there any other observations concerning the stability or general efficiency of the Eurydice in her recent commission that you could make that would further instruct the Court on these points ?—I would refer only to an extract from an official report made by the late Capt. Hare on the 10th of June, 1877, in which he states that the ship had been in three distinct gales of wind, but, although very lively in a high sea, she had behaved well, and that he believed the alteration in weights had in no way interfered with her well-establishied qualities as to sailing.

Captain Jones: With half her water and three weeks’ in provisions consumed, do you consider her stability would be compromised?— do not. She would have heeledmore under a given pressrure of sail, but that happens to all ships, and the precise amount of the difference is measurable by the officer in command.

Captain Carpenter: WOuld not the same difference occur under those conditions on board the Eurydice in her former commission as in the present?—Undoubtedly. The only difference supposable between the ship in former conditions and in her last is that in a given time a larger amount of water would have been consumed in her last commission, but the difference in behaviour as stores as on board her were consumed must have been always evident to the officer in command.

The President:- Assuming that three tons of water were consumed daily, making in 18 days 54 tons, and applying that to her former stowage of water, which was 90 tons, which is less than two-thirds of the entire stowage, do you consider that would represent an extreme or very exceptional state of things on board a sailing, man-o’-war — referring to the time when the Navy was composed of sailing men-of-war ?—I should not think it an extreme or exceptional state of things.

Captain Erskine: Supposing the quantity of provisions, water, and stores consumed on the passage home frm Bermuda was approximately ascertained, could not a calculation be made very accurately showing very accurately the actual of her stablity at the moment that she foundered, supposing her lee ports to have been closed ?—Yes, undoubtedly, and we should have made that calculation for the information of the Court if we could have got the facts.

Captain Davidson: Is it your opinion that the difficulty of a very extensive reduction of the Eurydice’s previous apparently very heavy armament was satisfactorily overcome as regards weights when she was converted into a training ship ?—I do not precisely understand the force of the word difficulty, but my answer would be that when the armament was changed the other changes made at the same time left the ship on the whole better off in the matter of stability than she had been before.

The Court then adjourned for luncheon. On re-assembling,

Surgeon-Major Robertson Bonstead, of the Indian Army, said on the 24th March he crossed from Portsmouth to Ryde between 3.15 and 4 p.m., in one of the Ryde Steamboats, and he encountered the squall in which the Eurydice was lost. The storm came on very suddenly, and apparently without any warning. It seemed to strike the vessel he was in with a blow. He remembered that the force of the wind was such that it powdered the snowflakes to dust. The snow fell in blinding sheets, and nothing could be seen while it lasted. Its duration was ior about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour. It took the vessel he was in quite aback. A few hours afterwards he heard that a man-o’-war had gone down off the Isle of Wight, with all hands,— Did you observe anything peculiarin the state of the sky ?—Yes; it became suddenly very black and overcast. That appearance presented itself almost immediately before the storm broke. It came, he thought, from N. and by W., a little more N. The wind was blowing in sudden gusts in all directions.

Staff-Commander Wm. Lamb Dodds R.N., said he was doing duty as master attendant at Bermuda, when the Eurydice was there. He was last on board the Eurydice a few minutes before she left the harbour. The ship took in provisions and water at Bermuda and was at her usual flotation and trim when they had been taken in. He had had opportunities of witnessing the ship’s complement under very disagreeable circumstances, viz., on Sunday night, March 3rd, at 11.0 p.m., it became necessary to resecure the ship in consequence of a gale having sprung up very suddenly. The night was very dark, and it was necessary to lay out heavy hawsers across the camber to prevent the vessel drifting on the rocky side of the camber. They were thus employed until three o’clock the following morning, and if the men had not worked well this could not have been carried out without any hitch. The duty was very well carried out. He had had other opportunities of observing the ships company, and the opinion which he formed as to the discipline and order of the Eurydice was that she was a complete success as a training ship, and that her young seamen would be a welcome addition to the naval forces at home. The discipline and order of the ship’s company could not have been better. The officers were most proud of their ship and of her doings during her cruise.

The Court then adjourned.—Before doing so, the President announced that to-day (Saturday) Mr. Robinson would be re-called to be examined as to one or two matters, and then the evidence would close, and the Court adjourn for deliberation.

[EXTRACT : RAISING]

Around the country, summaries of the week’s proceedings were also described in a slightly more concise form.

THE LOSS OF THE EURYDICE. COURT-MARTIAL AT PLYMOUTH. - Saturday, August 31st, 1878

North Briton, 1878-08-31, p. 5

On Tuesday an inquiry into the loss of H.M.S. Eurydice was opened on board the Duke of Wellington flagship, Portsmouth. Admiral Fanshawe, C.B., Commander-in-Chief, Portsmouth, presised, and there was a full attendance of officers. The Eurydice, sailing frigate, was lost off Dunnose Point, Isle of during a sudden violent squall, on Sunday, the 24th March last, when on her homeward voyage from the West Indies. The two survivors gave their evidence before the coroner at Ventnor. A court-martial was opened by the Admiralty, to be held on the survivors, Benjamin Cuddeford and Sydney Fletcher, seamen, but this is only formal, and a scientific inquiry will follow as to the construction of the ship, and her condition at the time of her loss. Depositions as to the loss of the ship were read.— Benjamin Cuddeford stated in evidence that he had been at sea 21 years, and he was on board the Eurydice about 14 months. He had been an able seaman for 14 years. On board the Eurydice he was at first captain’s coxwain, and at the time of the accident he was second captain of the quarter deck. It was his afternoon watch on the 24th of March, but, as was customary in the Eurydice on a Sunday, the men on watch were allowed to remain below until wanted for duty. He was on deck nearly the whole of the afternoon of the 24th of March. He saw Captain Hare on deck at 12.30, and at ten minutes past two. He saw him again on deck just after half-past three. At the latter time he was on the bridge. Soon after the watch to which the witness belonged came on duty, an order was given to set starboard studding sails, and more sail was subsequently set. Just after half-past three the watch was called to shorten sail, and this was done. He could not now remember who was officer of the watch on this afternoon. It was to Mr Randolph, sub-lieutenant, that the captain give the ceders to take in upper sails and order the men down from aloft. The captain was carrying on duty at the quarter-deck, and the officer of the watch on the forecastle, where he had been sent by the captain to assist in taking in the lower studding sail. From 12.30 P.M. to 2.10 P.M., when the lower studding sail was set, a moderate breeze was blowing, and he noticed no difference until the squall came on. The ship was under all plain sail at 12 o’clock and at 12.30 topmast studding sails were set, and later on theslower studding sails. When the log was hove, just after the lower studding sail was set, the ship was going at eight and a half knots. The lower studding sail was taken in on account of the increasing wind, but when forward he did not notice that the fore topmast studding sail boom was “complaining.” Had it been so he must have noticed it. The captain did not name the up sails which were to be taken in. He gave the order quickly “Watch, in upper sails. Some of the topgallantyard men went aloft, but he could not say how many. The captain immediately called them down again, and the ship was at once struck by the squall and heeled over. At that time the ship was going about 12 knots an hour. The order to put the helm up was given by the captain, and the Hon. Mr Giffard, a sub-lieutenant, rushed aft to help to execute it, but he could not say if the helm was put up or down. He never noticed that the ship’s head was altered at all. As seaman, he considered everything was done in a seamanlike manner to prevent danger to the ship. Nothing was done which was likely to cause danger. There was a life-buoy on each side of the bridge, two in each boat, and life-belts in the cutter for her crew. He could not say if the lower deck scuttles were out that afternoon or not. He knew of no order for the Eurydice to close the main deck ports in bad weather or at fixed times. All the deck pors were open except two on each side. On the afternoon of the catastrophe the sashes of the ports were not shipped. Those which were not open had guns in them. The ship completed provision-taking at Bermuda, but he did not know how much she took in. The provisions and the water were taken in at the last moment. Stores were taken in for conveyance to England, amongst them being wire rigging. When the tanks of the Eurydice were empty they were not filled with salt water. Restrictions were made on the issue of water for washing purposes, and this made a great saving in water.

On Wednesday evidence was taken as to atmospheric phenomena observed between three and four o clock on the afternoon of the 24th March. The evidence showed that two squalls, accompanied by snow, followed rapidly after each other, the effect of the first being to deceive experienced men as to the nature of the second, which struck the Eurydice and caused her to founder. Both squalls lasted generally 15 minutes, and the sun shone brightly before and after the disaster. Dismantling operations showed that several sails were loosened before the ship foundered.

When the court-martial resumed the following week, it was to announce the judgement of the Court and exonerate the survivors as well as the officers and crew.

JUDGMENT OF THE EURYDICE COURT MARTIAL - Thursday, September 5th, 1878

Isle of Wight Times, 1878-09-05, p. 5

The Deputy Judge Advocate gave the following judgment at the opening of the court on Monday morning.

1. — At a Court-Martial assembled on board of the Duke of Wellington flagship, in Portsmouth Harbour, on Aug.27, 1878, to inquire into the loss of her Majesty’s ship Eurydice, pursuant to the 91st and 92nd section of the Naval Discipline Act, 1886, do find that her Majesty’s ship Eurydice foundered on the afternoon of March 24, 1878, by pressure of wind upon her sails during a sudden and exceptionally dense snowstorm which overtook her when its approach was partially hidden by the proximity of the ship to high land.

2. – Some of the upper half ports on the main deck were open at the time, which materially conduced to the catastrophe; but the court consider that the upper half ports having been open, was justifiable and usual under the state of wind and weather up to the time of the occurrence of the storm.

3. – The Court are of opinion that no blame is attributable to anyone. The captain was frequnetly on the deck during the afternoon, and personally carrying on the duty before and at the time the squall struck her.

4. – The Court are further of opinion, from documentary evidence that due consideration was given to the stability of the Eurydice when the designs for her construction were decided upon and carried out.

5. – They are also convinced, by the official reports of all the captains who commanded her as a 26-gun frigate, embracing a period of nearly ten years’ sea service, and by a special report from Admiral Sir William Parker. on the occasion of her being tested against other ships of various descriptions, that the Eurydice was a ship possessing good qualities of stability up to the time that she was selected for adaptation as a training ship, and that when the necessary alterations were completed in May, 1877, she was in every respect an efficient ship, and the evidence shows that her stability was maintained. The Court do fully acquit the survivors, Benjamin Cuddeford, able seaman, and Sydney Fletcher, ordinary seaman ; and the said Benjamin Cuddeford and Sydney Fletcher are hereby so fully acquitted accordingly.

Not everyone, however, was convinced by the judgement.

There is also an echo back to the original myth:

The ship had just braved the dangers of an ocean voyage, and it was hard for the crew to believe that the greatest peril was to be first met on the threshold, as it were, of their own homes. They were anxious to get into harbour to see friends and relatives again, as we can well understand, and a storm of such suddenness and force is not often met with in these waters.”

THE EURYDICE - Saturday, September 7th, 1878

Isle of Wight Observer, 1878-09-07, p. 4-5

The court martial, at which the two survivors from the Eurydice were placed pro forma on their trial, has ended in their honourable acquittal, which, of course, was only to be expected. The court likewise declares that ” no blame is attributable to any one.” It is always a task repugnant to the sensitive mind to attach any blame to the dead, knowing that they cannot defend themselves ; and, in this instance, all those responsible for the disaster have paid for any error of judgement with their lives. Still we imagine that there are few persons acquainted with nautical matters who will altogether endorse the finding of the court, more especially among the seafaring population who witnessed the vessel just before the sad catastrophe which has been so much commented on. The Ventnor boatmen on the beach could see the squall coming, and, as the vessel passed off that town, several were heard to say, ” That fellow has too much sail.” How, then, are we to reconcile the fact of their perceiving the approach of stormy weather, and numerous other craft near passing through it without damage, with a finding that practically says the accident was unavoidable? Every person who remembers the storm, and who has read the evidence respecting it will be ready to admit that it was of exceptional severity, and that the accident was owing to the violent wind catching the sails when the lee ports were open. But there cannot be the slightest doubt that if Capt. Hare had kept his ports closed the sad event would not have happened, because then the ship would have righted directly after the one sharp gust was over. Here was one precaution neglected, and a very simple one. But, again, to our mind there can be no doubt that with a falling barometer the Eurydice was carrying too much sail. Had Capt. Hare but reduced it ever so little we should never have heard of the accident. Neither should we if he had ordered the ports to be closed. Here were two simple precautions, which might reasonably be expectedly to be carried out, but neither of which were attended to. Had the land not been so closely hugged there could have been no excuse that it was impossible to perceive the storm coming. If, however, the Ventnor boatmen could see it as the Eurydice passed off that town, we cannot help thinking that it ought to have been seen on board the ill-fated ship. We must say, therefore, that we think blame attached somewhere, though of course we do not deny that there were many extenuating circumstances. The ship had just braved the dangers of an ocean voyage, and it was hard for the crew to believe that the greatest peril was to be first met on the threshold, as it were, of their own homes. They were anxious to get into harbour to see friends and relatives again, as we can well understand, and a storm of such suddenness and force is not often met with in these waters. But there are hundreds of merchant ships who are daily met by the same conditions, and this is no excuse for reckless disregard of every elementary precaution. One of the London papers — the Times— argues that a constant regard for petty precautions is not to be expected from the captains of H.M.’s Navy, and, if encouraged, would be destructive of the spirit for which our seamen have always been distinguished. This may be true to a certain extent in war time, and we trust our Naval commanders will never be deficient in the courage and spirit which has caused them to defy all dangers in their efforts to carry the British flag triumphant in every sea. Still, in peace, with none of the exigencies and hurry which are inseparable from a state of hostilities, there is no reason why our naval commanders should not be quite as cautious as the captains of ordinary trading vessels, more especially as they have more lives dependent upon their prudence and forethought.

Elsewhere, we can see how other services reported the outcome in more “establishment-friendly” terms, including a final statement from Cuddeford.

THE ” EURYDICE.” - Saturday, September 7th, 1878

Illustrated Police News, 1878-09-07, p. 4

The evidence at the “Eurydice ” court-martial was closed on Saturday. A diver named Sutherland deposed to finding the scuttle on the lower deck closed; and Mr. W. D. Robinson, Chief Constructor at Portsmouth Yard, produced calculations, showing that in her last commission the ” Eurydice ” had fourteen tons less ballast than when sailed as a frigate. The fact that ninety tons of provisions had been consumed when she capsized would not compromise her stability to any serious degree if she was properly handled. Of course, under a loss of weight in the lower part of the ship she would necessarily have less stability. The officer managing her would know this, and, therefore, press her correspondingly less with sail. He should call this proper handling. The consumption of ninety tons of stores, provisions, and water would reduce the draught of the ” Eurydice” by 9 in. There was nothing unusual in this reduction. Cuddeford was then asked by the Court whether he had anything to add before the evidence was closed, and he made a statement which he wished should be entered on the minutes. He desired it to be known that the crew loved and respected Captain Hare, in whom they had undoubted confidence, knowing that as a sailor he was surpassed by none. He had the love and respect of every officer and man in the ship, whose comfort and happiness he studied in every way. The men were proud of their captain, proud of their officers, and proud of their ship, which was admirably adapted to the service in which she was employed. Fletcher stated that he could add nothing to what Cuddeford had stated. The Court deliberated for over three hours, and adjourned until Monday, when the judgment of the Court was pronounced. They were of opinion that the ship foundered in a sudden and exceptionally dense snow storm on March 24, by pressure of wind on sails, and that the upper half ports being justifiably open, considering the state of the previons wind and weather, naturally conduced to the catastrophe. No one is to blame, the captain being frequently on deck, and carrying on duty before and at the time the squall struck her. The Court is further of opinion that the stability was maintained after her adaptation as a training-ship, and that after alteration in May, 1877, she was in every respect an efficient ship. They fully acquit the two survivors, Cuddiford and Fletcher.

The work of clearing out the “Eurydice” commenced on Monday, and as soon as it can be done the ship is to be brought into dock to have a thorough overhaul. The wreck has been the attraction for numerous excursion parties, and the authorities have great difficulty in preserving the ship intact, so eager are persons to carry away pieces of wood as momentos of the sad calamity.

A more comprehensive report on the judgement of the court-martial was provided by the Hampshire Telegraph, preceded by a description of the evidence presented on the final day of testimony. Cuddeford also offered several final remarks.

THE EURYDICE COURT-MARTIAL. - Wednesday, September 4th, 1878

Hampshire Telegraph, 1878-09-04, p. 2

THE JUDGEMENT.

The Court-Martial was resumed on Saturday on board the Duke of Wellington, flag-ship, the Court being composed of the following officers : - Admiral Edward G. Fanshawe, C.B., President; Captain the Hon. Walter Cecil Carpenter, H.M.S. Duke of Wellington; Captain Theodore Morton Jones, H.M.S. Asia; Captain William Arthur, H.M.S. Vernon; Captain James Elphinstone Erskine, H.M.S. Boadicea; Captain Edward Kelly, H.M.S. Cyclops ; Captain Duncan George Davidson, H,M.S. Serapis; Captain Charles James Brownrigg, H.M.S. Euphrates; and Captain George Parsons, H.M.S. Jumna. George P. Martin, Esq., barrister-at-law, officiated as Deputy-Judge-Advocate of the Fleet. The letter and warrant from the Admiralty for holding the Court-Martial were as follows:—

Admiralty, 28th March, 1879.
Sir- I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to transmit to you herewith their Lordships’ warrant for assembling a court-martial at Portsmouth for the purposes of inquiring into the cause of the loss of H.M.S. Eurydice on the 24th instant, and of trying Benjamin Cuddeford, A.B., and Sidney Fletcher, ordinary seaman, the survivors of that ship, under the 91st and 92nd Sections of the Naval Discipline Act, 1866.

I am also directed to acquaint you that my Lords desire that you should preside at this Court, and that the inquiry should embrace the condition of the Eurydice in all respects, including that of stability.
I am, &c.,
ROBERT HALL.

Admiral B. G. Fanshawe, C.B., Portsmouth. The warrant addressed to Admiral Fanshawe was as follows:—

“Whereas you have reported to us the loss of H.MS. Eurydice on the 24th of March, 1878, and whereas we think fit that a court-martial shall be held, pursuant to the custom of the Navy, to inquire into the cause of the loss of the said ship, and that Benjamin Cuddeford, able seaman, and Sidney Fletcher. ordinary seaman, the survivors of the said ship, shall be tried under the 91st and 92nd sections of the Naval Discipline Act, 1866, we do hereby require and direct you to assemble a court-martial as soon as conveniently may be, which court, you being the President thereof, is hereby required and directed to inquire into the cause of the loss of H.M.S. Eurydice, and to try the said Benjamin Cuddeford and Sidney Fletcher accordingly.”

The sections referred to were as follow:—
91st Section.—When any one of Her Majesty’s ships shall be wrecked, or lost, or destroyed, or taken by the enemy, such ship shall, for the purposes of the Act, be deemed to remain in commission until her crew be regularly removed into some other of Her Majesty’s ships of war, or until a Court-martial shall have been held, pursuant to the custom of the Navy in such cases, to inquire into the cause of the wreck, loss, destruction, or capture of the said ship.
92nd Section.—When no specific charge shall he made against any officer or seaman, or other person in the Fleet, for, or in respect, or in consequence of such wreck, loss, in destruction, or capture, it shall be lawful to try all the officers and crew, or all the surviving officers and crew, of any such ship, together, before one and the same Court, and to call upon all or any of them when upon their trial to give evidence upon oath or affirmation before the Court touching any of the matters then under inquiry, but no officer or seaman or other person shall he obliged to give any evidence which may tend to criminate himself.

FIFTH DAY.

The Court resumed at 11.30 on Saturday morning.

Alexander Sutherland, diver, from Messrs. Siebe and Gorman, London, was called. He said he had been employed as a diver at the Eurydice. The lower-deck scuttles were all closed, and the glasses unbroken.

Mr. W. B. Robinson, Chief Constructor at Portsmouth, re-called, said he wished to correct a portion of an answer in his previous evidence, where attributing misapprehension to the Court, and to state that in making his report on July 19th, he based the same on a draught of water of 1854, of, forward. 15ft. 11in.; aft, 17ft. 1na.; and in 1877 of 16ft. forward, and 17ft. aft., giving in each case a mean of 16ft. 6in. In the 211 form of 1854 the draught of water was inserted in red ink, as was the remark ” powder and shell not on board.” The form itself of that year showed the powder and shell on board;, hence the powder, weighing 9 tons 73cwt. 2qrs. 8lbs., and the shell 4 tons 5cwt. 3qrs. 20lbs., must be deducted, as he had done in a summary. The form for 1877 gave the same mean draught, 16ft. 6in., as in 1854, but thee was a wight stated as yet to be received of 3 tons 5cwt. 1qr. 22lbs., and that weight he had assumed to be for powder and pill shell, as none was shown in the return, At the bottom of the return in 1877 a note ran thus :-“Powder shot, and shell on board.” Under these circumstances he had assumed it right to add in the summary 3 tons 5cwt. 1qr. 22lbs., and he saw no reason, after having carefully reconsidered the imperfect return, to do otherwise, observing that the weight in question was a trifling one compared with the 148 tons or thereabouts, which was the difference between the returns of 1854 and 1877, though the draughts of water were alike.—Capt. Arthur : On form 17 of the table headed 1854, sub-headed “Additions and deductions,” is not the weight of powder and shell placed under the head of deductions?—Yes, as explained in the last answer,—If these items are deducted from the total shown on the form, viz., 600 tons odd, as is done unuder the heading “Summary 1854 form” on the same page, would not the result shown, viz., 503 tons odd, represent the weights on board, not including the powder and shell?— Yes, and would agree with the red ink notation against the draught of w ater.— Then in this case would it not he necessary to add 14 tons if you obtain the weights which she went to sea with?—Yes, but the draught of water should have been correspondingly increased.

The President : Therefore, comparing the draught of water on form 211 taken by the Dockyard officers, which shows a mean draught of 16ft. 6in. in 1854, and comparing it with the draught of water on form 211 taken in 1877 by the Dockyard officers, which also shows 16ft. 6in,, the latter would be rather under the actual draught of water of the ship when fully equipped. Is that so?—Yes, to the extent of about an inch and a half. Fourteen tons is a very close approximation to the actual difference in weights on the two occasions, notwithstanding the statement on the corrected forms 211, assuming the hull to be the same on both occasions.—Have you any reason to suppose that the weight of the hull had been increased or diminished ?—No. -Captain Brownrigg: Do you consider the question of stability was compromised in any serious degree by the expenditure of water and provisions to the extent of 90 tons? -No, I do not, under proper handling. — The President: Will you state what you would consider prper handling to maintain stabilityunder the circumstances described in the last question?— Under a loss of weights in the lower part of the ship she would have necessarily less stability. The officer managing her would of course know this, and thereforee press her less, correspondingly, with sails. This I should call proper handling.

Captain Carpenter: How many inches would 90 tons reduce the draught ?—About nine inches; the displacement at low water being about ten tons to the inch. —Is there anything unusual in this reduction of draught in a seagoing sailing ship?—No, I think not.— In point of fact must not it often happen ?—Probably it does often happen. Altering her draught to that effect, I believe, would not at all change her range of stability.

The Court was then cleared for deliberation, and on re-opening, the Deputy Judge-Advocate, addressing the survivors, said the Court desired him to inform them that all the evidence which they proposed calling before the Court had been concluded, and they wished to know if they had anything to add to their statements already made.—Cuddeford: I have nothing to add to my evidence, sir, but I should like to say before this Court-Martial is concluded how much an we all loved our unoble Captain. We had unbounded confidence in him, knowing that as a sailor he was surpassed by none, and I am sure he had the love and respect of every officer and man in the ship, for he studied their comfort and happiness in all respects. We were proud of our Captain, proud of our officers, and proud of our ship, looking upon her as admirably adapted for the services in which she was employed.—Fletcher, in answer to a similar question, replied that he could only make the same remarks as Cuddeford.

The Court then adjourned until Monday, for the finding of the Court to be read.

SIXTH DAY.

The Court did not open until about midday on Monday, when the Deputy Judge-Advocate of the Fleet read the following judgment:-

At a court-martial assembled on board of the Duke of Wellinegton, flagship in Portsmouth harbour, on the 27th of August, 1878, to inquire into the loss of H.M.S. Eurydice, pursuant to the 91st and 92nd Sections of the Naval Discipline Act, 1866, composed of the following officers, Admiral E. G. Fanshawe, C.B., Commander-in-Chief at Portsmouth, President; Captains the Hon. W. C. Carpenter, Duke of Wellington; T. M. Jones, Asia ; W. Arthur, Vernon; J. E. Erskine, Boadicea; E. Kelly, Cyclops: D. G. Davidson, Serapis; C. J. Brownrigg, Euphrates: G . Parsons, Jumna ; and Mr. G. P. Martin, barrister-at-law, Deputy Judge-Advocate of the Fleet, and adjourned from day to day (Sunday excepted) until Monday, September 2nd, the Court, pursuant to an order from the Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral of Great Britain and Ireland, proceeded with the trial of the said Benjamin Cuddeford and Sidney Fletcher, of H.M.S. Eurydice.

1.—And taking their evidence and the other evidence they deemed necessary, and having deliberately weighed and considered the whole, do find that H.M.S. Eurydice foundered on the afternoon of the 24th of March, 1878, by pressure of wind upon her sails during a sudden and exceptionally dense snow storm, which overtook her when its approach was partially hidden by the proximity of the ship to high land.

2.—Some of the upper half ports of the main deck were open at the time, which materially conduced to the catastrophe, but the Court consider that the upper half ports having been open was justifiable, and usual under the state of wind and weather up to the time of the actual occurrence of the storm.

3-The Court are of opinion that no blame is attributable to any one. The captain was frequently on the deck during the afternoon, and personally carrying on the duty before and at the time the squall struck the ship.

4.—The Court are further of opinion, from documentary evidence, that due consideration was given to the stability of the Eurydice when the designs for her construction were decided upon and carried out.

5.—They are also convinced by the official reports of all the captains who commanded her as a 26-gun frigate, eembracing a period of nearly ten years’ sea service, and by a special report from Admiral Sir William Parker, on the of occasion of her being tested against other ships of various descriptions, that the Eurydice was a ship possessing good qualities of stability up to the time that she selected for adaptation as a training-ship, and that when the necessary alterations were completed in May, 1877, she was in every respect an efficient ship, and the evidence shows that her stability was maintained.

6.—The Court do fully acquit the survivors, Benjamin Cuddeford, able seaman, and Sidney Fletcher, ordinary seaman, and the said Benjamin Cuddeford and Sidney Fletcher are hereby so fully acquitted accordingly.

The Court was then dissolved.

The response of the Hampshire Telegraph to the judgement attempted to be more considered, but doubt lingered at the end as to whether it was the correct one.

PORTSMOUTH, WEDNESDAY. SEPTEMBER 4. - Wednesday, September 4th, 1878

Hampshire Telegraph, 1878-09-04, p. 2

We shall soon have heard the last of the ill-fated Eurydice. The finding of the Court-martial was generally anticipated by the public, and it is understood that the bringing of the vessel into harbour will be quickly followed by her breaking up. The catastrophe of the 24th of March last was one of the darkest in the annals of the British Navy, and yet it is apparently destined to leave only the shadow of a sad memory behind. It has been said that the first impulse of our countrymen after any great disaster is to ” hang somebody.” This temper has been a good deal satirised, and yet it has to a large extent a strictly logical foundation. The scientific mind is slow to ascribe anything to pure accident. A catastrophe may have been unforeseen, but it is generally discovered on investigation that its cause is perfectly intelligible, and such as extreme vigilance might have detected, and consequently avoided. When the sad intelligence of the foundering of the Eurydice was first made known, we expressed the opinion that fearful as were all the circumstances surrounding the loss of the vessel, it would be still more terrible were the conclusion to be reached, after mature deliberation, that the cause of the disaster was a complete mystery. The verdict of the first Coroner’s Jury, which exonerated everybody from blame, was clearly not entitled to serious attention. No scientific or technical evidence was taken, and a single sitting sufficed for the inquiry. This cannot be said of the recent Court-martial, which, arriving at the same conclusion, has spent a working week in its attempt to elucidate the mystery. The finding of the Court may be divided into two parts-first, that which relates to the stability of the ship ; and secondly, that which concerns her handling at the time she went down. On the first point there appears to be no ground for any difference of opinion. Admitting the incompetence of all but experts to deal with the technicalities of the subject, it cannot be said to require any special knowledge to judge of the value of the evidence bearing upon this branch of the inquiry which was laid before the Court-martial. The Eurydice had always the reputation of being a good sailor, and it must now be regarded as beyond dispute that her conversion from a frigate into a training-ship in no degree diminished her stability. It is true the question of her stability was not specially considered when the plans for her conversion were originally under discussion, but this was only because the proposed changes were obviously such as to require no examination on this point. Since his attention has been particularly directed to this subject, Mr. Barnaby has come to the conclusion that the Eurydice rather gained than lost in stability by her conversion, and Mr. W. B. Robinson is of the same opinion. Whatever, then, was the cause of the catastrophe it cannot be attributed to any positive or even comparative defects in the ship herself.

This should lead us to examine the other branch of the subject all the more closely. If the Eurydice foundered from no inherent fault of her own, was there anything in her handling on the fatal Sunday afternoon which caused the terrible result? The Court-martial declares that there was not, and yet the very language of the finding raises doubts which cannot, and honestly speaking, ought not to be suppressed. The immediate cause of the catastrophe was, of course, the sudden storm which for a few minutes raged with cyclonic fury, but as other vessels rode it out in safety some further explanation is obviously required. This is, in effect, acknowledged by the Court, which proceeds to say that ” some of the upper ports on the main deck were open at the time, which materially conduced to the catastrophe,” though the important addition is made that this step ” was justifiable and usual under the state of the wind and weather up to the time of the actual occurrence of the storm.” Here we reach the very root of the whole inquiry. Did the state of the weather really permit of such confidence as was displayed on board the Eurydice? The barometer had been falling for a couple of days or more, while the indications of a coming storm, though it may be ” partially hidden,” as the verdict recites, ” by the proximity of the ship to high land,” was so far apparent that the order to shorten sail had already been given and was actually in process of being obeyed. Is it wrong or uncharitable, under these circumstances, to surmise that the course pursued amounted to an error of judgment? It was impossible to anticipate the altogether exceptional fury of the gale, but would not the exercise of a little caution have made all the difference between entire safety and utter destruction? “It must be understood,” observes the Times, in dealing with this part of the case, ” that in the naval service a creeping servitude to caution would be intolerable.” This principle is no doubt admirable in the exigencies of actual warfare, but it cannot be said to have any application to a vessel when simply making for port and within sight of “home.” To suppose otherwise would be to infer that the commander of the Eurydice and his gallant companions knew the risk they were running, and were determined to brave it at all hazards. Fortunately no such foolhardy intention can be attributed to them. That each man did his duty according to his lights will be admitted by the most exacting of critics. What is not so certain is that the soundness of judgment exhibited on this occasion was of apiece with that courage and indomitable resolution which the British sailor evinces in every emergency.

Back on the Island, the view of the Isle of Wight Observer was more nondescript.

THE EURYDICE COURT MARTIAL. THE JUDGEMENT. - Saturday, September 7th, 1878

Isle of Wight Observer, 1878-09-07, p. 6

The court re-assembled on Monday morning at at 10 o’clock, and was formally opened at half-past 12, when the Judge Advocate-General of the Fleet read the following judgment :

At a court martial assembled on board of the Duke of Wellington, flagship, in Portmouth Harbour, on the 27th of August, 1878, to inquire into the loss of Her Majesty’s ship Eurydice, pursuant to the 91st and 92nd section of the Naval Discipline Act, 1866, composed of the following officers- Admiral Fanshawe, C.B., Commander-in-Chief, Portsmouth, president; Captains the Hon. W. C. Carpenter, Duke of Wellington; Messrs. T. M. Jones, Asia; W. Arthur, Vernon ; J. E. Erskine, Boadicea; E Kelly, Cyclops; D. G. Davidson, Serabis; E J. Brownrigg, Euphrates; G Parsons, Jumna ; and Mr. G. P. Martin, Deputy Judge-Advocate of the Fleet, and adjourned from day to day (Sunday excepted) until Monday, September 2, the court, pursuant to an order from the Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral of Great Britain and Ireland, proceeded with the trial of the said Benjamin Cuddiford and Sydney Fletcher, of Her Majesty’s ship Eurydice, and taking their evidence, and the other evidence they deemed necessary, and having deliberately weighed and considered the whole, do find that Her Majesty’s ship Eurydice foundered on the afternoon of the 24th March, 1878, by pressure of wind upon her sail during a sudden and exceptionally dense snowstorm which overtook her when the approach was partially hidden by the proximity of the ship to high land.

1. Some of the upper half ports on the main deck were open at the time, which materially conduced to the catastrophe; but the court consider that the upper half ports having been open was justifiable and usual under the state of wind and weather up to the time of the actual occurrence of the storm.

2. The court are of opinion that no blame is attributable to any one. The captain was frequently on the deck during the afternoon, anel personally carrying on the duty before and at the time the squall struck her.

3. The court are further of opinion, from documentary evidence, that due consideration was given to the question of the stability of the Eurydice when the designs for her construction were decided upon and carried out.

4. They are also convinced, by the official reports of all the captains who commanded her as a 26-gun frigate embracing a period of nearly ten years’ sea service, and by a special report from Admiral Sir William Parker on the occasion of her being tested against other ships of various descriptions, that the Eurydice was a ship possessing good qualities of stability up to the time that she was selected for adaptation as a training ship, and that when the necessary alterations were completed in May, 1877, she was in every respect an efficient ship, and the evidence shows that her stability was maintained.

The court do fully acquit the survivors, Benjamin Cuddiford, able seaman, and Sydney Fletcher, ordinary seaman, and the said Benjamin Cuddiford and Sydney Fletcher are hereby so fully acquitted accordingly. The court then dissolved.

[EXTRACT : RETURN]