THE WRECK OF THE STELLA.'
THE wreck of the Stella' is an exceptionally painful incident, not only from the number and quality of the drowned, but because it seems to have been so totally unnecessary. The ship was a strong one and well found ; ,her machinery was in perfect order ; she had a competent Captain who attended to his duty ; the crew were under magnificent discipline ; her boats were to an unusual degree available for speedy use ; even the passengers were, in extremity, brave and collected ; and her voyage was a run in the Channel over a route as well known to sailors as the Strand to cabmen ; yet ninety of her passengers died in ten minutes by a violent and painful death. The explanation is of course the old one, which we have to repeat about once a quarter, that in managing a machine of any kind, from an army to a lawn-mower, everything must ultimately depend upon a human mind ; and when that mind works wrongly, no amount of scientific prevision or mechanician's skill will secure perfect safety. Captain Reeks thought it consistent -with his duty to drive a fully laden steamer through a fog at eighteen miles an hour ; and as there were rocks hidden in the fog, the Stella' was dashed to pieces as a train would have been if, when travelling at that speed, it - had run into a stationary obstacle. The cause of the mischief was the speed, and the speed was the Captain's fault, though one is reluctant to blame a man who the moment the disaster had occurred did his duty like a hero, and died doing it. We see no advantage in dwelling on the horrors of the scene, except indeed to throw into stronger relief the heroic behaviour of the crew and passengers, who, doubtless most ordinary, perhaps even vulgar, men and women, set an example of fortitude in extremity which, if we could but imitate it in ordinary life, would make us happier and better ; but we want to point out another lesson derivable from the calamity. Shipowners have not done enough to reduce the chances of drowning at sea. That they cannot do more in the way of constructing their ships is probably true. They must build of iron, and iron not too solid to allow of space and speed ; and to prevent a thin iron vessel from breaking to pieces when she is driven on a rock, or her sides are struck -by another steamer, is, we can readily believe, practically impossible. Watertight compartments are useful, but they seldom work in circumstances of extremity, and a prow which would break off on impact, leaving-the vessel a safe though cumbrous tub, with- out shattering the structure behind-it, would be most incon- venient in harbour, and is perhaps beyond the wit of man to devise. An absolutely' unsinkable vessel, which would no more go down if smashed than a floating tree would, is conceivable ; but as it must be constructed of thousands of cells, it would be unreasonably costly to build, and when built would probably reveal disqualifications of its own. Shipbuilders have every temptation to build safe vessels, and though they are crazy about speed and artistic perfection of form, it is not'.probable that they deliberately avoid any precaution consistent with the necessities of their work. But we cannot but think that the wit of inventors, who now include some of the ablest men in the world, has been directed too much to the construction of a perfect vessel, and too little to the safety of her inhabitants when by any chance her perfection is rendered useless. It seems to outsiders hard to believe that it is impossible for a vessel to carry easily used appliances for keeping its crew and passengers afloat for a few hours after its own destruction. Is there any reason why boats with water-butts always - stored in them should not be so hung as to be capable of being lowered in seconds instead of minutes ? As we have invented a boat which will not sink—vide Mr. Rowland Vesian's most lucid account of his experiences when the Stella' blew up—is there any unanswerable reason why all boats on passenger steamers should not be unsinkable ? And is a boat, in the ordinary acceptation of the term, the best instrument for saving life after a wreck at a short distance from land or in a much- frequented part of the sea ? We bow at once to experts on this as on every other subject, but it certainly occurs to the lay mind that a heavy structure, occupying a great deal of room, and liable to sink if it is overfilled either with passengers, or cargo, or water, cannot be the ideal appliance for saving life. A. lifebelt will hold a man up in a bad sea for many hours, then why should not a congeries of lifebelts hold many men and a light raft, too, for many hours. ? Such an appliance need not be of rubber, nor need it be kept on the upper deck, but below almost on a level with the water. It would hardly move it is true, but, then is it required to move ? Would it not, if it carried rockets, have much more chance—we are speaking of wrecks in frequented places—on account of its compara- tive immobility ? What did Mr. Vesian's boat gain by its power of motion' except the right of wearing out everybody who could use an oar ? We throw this out, however, merely as a suggestion; our real object being to induce the inventive to devise a raft that can be easily packed, that can be quickly set afloat, and that can sustain a small crowd for, say, seventy-two hours. We believe that a heavy reward would produce such a raft, and wish that the Trinity Board, or some such body, would encourage experiment in that direction. Their help is required because inventors are seeking fortunes, and such an invention, if made, would probably bring no fortune to its inventor. Wrecks in frequented places are too infrequent and shipowners are too well protected by insurances for inventors to rack their brains upon life-protecting appliances.
We wonder, if such a protection could be devised, whether it would diminish the courage of those who go down to the sea in ships, either as passengers or as sailors. That may seem an odd question to ask, but we have noticed with an ever increasing surprise, as well as admiration, that people in a wreck usually display more courage than people in any other kind of danger except, indeed, in a mining disaster. We very much doubt if a large group of ordinary middle- class folk like that on the Stella '—folk used for the most part to protected, or, as the French say, to " podded " lives— would face death from a battery or from a cavalry charge as the passengers on the Stella' faced it from the sea. We know they would not face a fire in that serene way. The passengers were taken by surprise, they had no hope except in the %oats, yet the men fell back from the boats that the women might enter them, the children were cared for, life- belts were surrendered by the strong to the weak, there is no hint in the survivors' narratives either of rushing or skulk- ing or selfishness such as an undisciplined mob always betrays in battle. What makes the difference ? It is diffi- cult to resist the conclusion that it is hopelessness, the clear perception that except in God there is no hope, and that death through the wreck must be met as it is met every day by the most ordinary people through disease. If the means of escape were visible as they seem to be visible on the battle- field, there would be hurried flight, confusion, a paralysis of the will, but as there is none the majority meet the last terror with a resignation all the more wonder- ful because the imagination probably exaggerates the horror of drowning, thinking it more dreadful, for instance, than acute bronchitis, which it almost certainly is not. That is not, of course, a reason for neglecting precautions, but it is a reason why those who suffer -most from a wreck—the survivors and the friends of the dead—should take comfort from the narratives of the victims' calm. Death is always terrible, but if we may judge from their usual conduct, death at sea has no more terror for the slain than death in bed.
Previous page
