it is with a certain bitterness that one must admit to oneself that the late s.s. titanic had a “good press.” it is perhaps because i have no great practice of daily newspapers (i have never seen so many of them together lying about my room) that the white spaces and the big lettering of the headlines have an incongruously festive air to my eyes, a disagreeable effect of a feverish exploitation of a sensational god-send. and if ever a loss at sea fell under the definition, in the terms of a bill of lading, of act of god, this one does, in its magnitude, suddenness and severity; and in the chastening influence it should have on the self-confidence of mankind.

i say this with all the seriousness the occasion demands, though i have neither the competence nor the wish to take a theological view of this great misfortune, sending so many souls to their last account. it is but a natural reflection. another one flowing also from the phraseology of bills of lading (a bill of lading is a shipping document limiting in certain of its clauses the liability of the carrier) is that the “king’s enemies” of a more or less overt sort are not altogether sorry that this fatal mishap should strike the prestige of the greatest merchant service of the world. i believe that not a thousand miles from these shores certain public prints have betrayed in gothic letters their satisfaction — to speak plainly — by rather ill-natured comments.

in what light one is to look at the action of the american senate is more difficult to say. from a certain point of view the sight of the august senators of a great power rushing to new york and beginning to bully and badger the luckless “yamsi”— on the very quay-side so to speak — seems to furnish the shakespearian touch of the comic to the real tragedy of the fatuous drowning of all these people who to the last moment put their trust in mere bigness, in the reckless affirmations of commercial men and mere technicians and in the irresponsible paragraphs of the newspapers booming these ships! yes, a grim touch of comedy. one asks oneself what these men are after, with this very provincial display of authority. i beg my friends in the united states pardon for calling these zealous senators men. i don’t wish to be disrespectful. they may be of the stature of demi-gods for all i know, but at that great distance from the shores of effete europe and in the presence of so many guileless dead, their size seems diminished from this side. what are they after? what is there for them to find out? we know what had happened. the ship scraped her side against a piece of ice, and sank after floating for two hours and a half, taking a lot of people down with her. what more can they find out from the unfair badgering of the unhappy “yamsi,” or the ruffianly abuse of the same.

“yamsi,” i should explain, is a mere code address, and i use it here symbolically. i have seen commerce pretty close. i know what it is worth, and i have no particular regard for commercial magnates, but one must protest against these bumble-like proceedings. is it indignation at the loss of so many lives which is at work here? well, the american railroads kill very many people during one single year, i dare say. then why don’t these dignitaries come down on the presidents of their own railroads, of which one can’t say whether they are mere means of transportation or a sort of gambling game for the use of american plutocrats. is it only an ardent and, upon the whole, praiseworthy desire for information? but the reports of the inquiry tell us that the august senators, though raising a lot of questions testifying to the complete innocence and even blankness of their minds, are unable to understand what the second officer is saying to them. we are so informed by the press from the other side. even such a simple expression as that one of the look-out men was stationed in the “eyes of the ship” was too much for the senators of the land of graphic expression. what it must have been in the more recondite matters i won’t even try to think, because i have no mind for smiles just now. they were greatly exercised about the sound of explosions heard when half the ship was under water already. was there one? were there two? they seemed to be smelling a rat there! has not some charitable soul told them (what even schoolboys who read sea stories know) that when a ship sinks from a leak like this, a deck or two is always blown up; and that when a steamship goes down by the head, the boilers may, and often do break adrift with a sound which resembles the sound of an explosion? and they may, indeed, explode, for all i know. in the only case i have seen of a steamship sinking there was such a sound, but i didn’t dive down after her to investigate. she was not of 45,000 tons and declared unsinkable, but the sight was impressive enough. i shall never forget the muffled, mysterious detonation, the sudden agitation of the sea round the slowly raised stern, and to this day i have in my eye the propeller, seen perfectly still in its frame against a clear evening sky.

but perhaps the second officer has explained to them by this time this and a few other little facts. though why an officer of the british merchant service should answer the questions of any king, emperor, autocrat, or senator of any foreign power (as to an event in which a british ship alone was concerned, and which did not even take place in the territorial waters of that power) passes my understanding. the only authority he is bound to answer is the board of trade. but with what face the board of trade, which, having made the regulations for 10,000 ton ships, put its dear old bald head under its wing for ten years, took it out only to shelve an important report, and with a dreary murmur, “unsinkable,” put it back again, in the hope of not being disturbed for another ten years, with what face it will be putting questions to that man who has done his duty, as to the facts of this disaster and as to his professional conduct in it — well, i don’t know! i have the greatest respect for our established authorities. i am a disciplined man, and i have a natural indulgence for the weaknesses of human institutions; but i will own that at times i have regretted their — how shall i say it? — their imponderability. a board of trade — what is it? a board of . . . i believe the speaker of the irish parliament is one of the members of it. a ghost. less than that; as yet a mere memory. an office with adequate and no doubt comfortable furniture and a lot of perfectly irresponsible gentlemen who exist packed in its equable atmosphere softly, as if in a lot of cotton-wool, and with no care in the world; for there can be no care without personal responsibility — such, for instance, as the seamen have — those seamen from whose mouths this irresponsible institution can take away the bread — as a disciplinary measure. yes — it’s all that. and what more? the name of a politician — a party man! less than nothing; a mere void without as much as a shadow of responsibility cast into it from that light in which move the masses of men who work, who deal in things and face the realities — not the words — of this life.

years ago i remember overhearing two genuine shellbacks of the old type commenting on a ship’s officer, who, if not exactly incompetent, did not commend himself to their severe judgment of accomplished sailor-men. said one, resuming and concluding the discussion in a funnily judicial tone:

“the board of trade must have been drunk when they gave him his certificate.”

i confess that this notion of the board of trade as an entity having a brain which could be overcome by the fumes of strong liquor charmed me exceedingly. for then it would have been unlike the limited companies of which some exasperated wit has once said that they had no souls to be saved and no bodies to be kicked, and thus were free in this world and the next from all the effective sanctions of conscientious conduct. but, unfortunately, the picturesque pronouncement overheard by me was only a characteristic sally of an annoyed sailor. the board of trade is composed of bloodless departments. it has no limbs and no physiognomy, or else at the forthcoming inquiry it might have paid to the victims of the titanic disaster the small tribute of a blush. i ask myself whether the marine department of the board of trade did really believe, when they decided to shelve the report on equipment for a time, that a ship of 45,000 tons, that any ship, could be made practically indestructible by means of watertight bulkheads? it seems incredible to anybody who had ever reflected upon the properties of material, such as wood or steel. you can’t, let builders say what they like, make a ship of such dimensions as strong proportionately as a much smaller one. the shocks our old whalers had to stand amongst the heavy floes in baffin’s bay were perfectly staggering, notwithstanding the most skilful handling, and yet they lasted for years. the titanic, if one may believe the last reports, has only scraped against a piece of ice which, i suspect, was not an enormously bulky and comparatively easily seen berg, but the low edge of a floe — and sank. leisurely enough, god knows — and here the advantage of bulkheads comes in — for time is a great friend, a good helper — though in this lamentable case these bulkheads served only to prolong the agony of the passengers who could not be saved. but she sank, causing, apart from the sorrow and the pity of the loss of so many lives, a sort of surprised consternation that such a thing should have happened at all. why? you build a 45,000 tons hotel of thin steel plates to secure the patronage of, say, a couple of thousand rich people (for if it had been for the emigrant trade alone, there would have been no such exaggeration of mere size), you decorate it in the style of the pharaohs or in the louis quinze style — i don’t know which — and to please the aforesaid fatuous handful of individuals, who have more money than they know what to do with, and to the applause of two continents, you launch that mass with two thousand people on board at twenty-one knots across the sea — a perfect exhibition of the modern blind trust in mere material and appliances. and then this happens. general uproar. the blind trust in material and appliances has received a terrible shock. i will say nothing of the credulity which accepts any statement which specialists, technicians and office-people are pleased to make, whether for purposes of gain or glory. you stand there astonished and hurt in your profoundest sensibilities. but what else under the circumstances could you expect?

for my part i could much sooner believe in an unsinkable ship of 3,000 tons than in one of 40,000 tons. it is one of those things that stand to reason. you can’t increase the thickness of scantling and plates indefinitely. and the mere weight of this bigness is an added disadvantage. in reading the reports, the first reflection which occurs to one is that, if that luckless ship had been a couple of hundred feet shorter, she would have probably gone clear of the danger. but then, perhaps, she could not have had a swimming bath and a french cafe. that, of course, is a serious consideration. i am well aware that those responsible for her short and fatal existence ask us in desolate accents to believe that if she had hit end on she would have survived. which, by a sort of coy implication, seems to mean that it was all the fault of the officer of the watch (he is dead now) for trying to avoid the obstacle. we shall have presently, in deference to commercial and industrial interests, a new kind of seamanship. a very new and “progressive” kind. if you see anything in the way, by no means try to avoid it; smash at it full tilt. and then — and then only you shall see the triumph of material, of clever contrivances, of the whole box of engineering tricks in fact, and cover with glory a commercial concern of the most unmitigated sort, a great trust, and a great ship-building yard, justly famed for the super-excellence of its material and workmanship. unsinkable! see? i told you she was unsinkable, if only handled in accordance with the new seamanship. everything’s in that. and, doubtless, the board of trade, if properly approached, would consent to give the needed instructions to its examiners of masters and mates. behold the examination-room of the future. enter to the grizzled examiner a young man of modest aspect: “are you well up in modern seamanship?” “i hope so, sir.” “h’m, let’s see. you are at night on the bridge in charge of a 150,000 tons ship, with a motor track, organ-loft, etc., etc., with a full cargo of passengers, a full crew of 1,500 cafe waiters, two sailors and a boy, three collapsible boats as per board of trade regulations, and going at your three-quarter speed of, say, about forty knots. you perceive suddenly right ahead, and close to, something that looks like a large ice-floe. what would you do?” “put the helm amidships.” “very well. why?” “in order to hit end on.” “on what grounds should you endeavour to hit end on?” “because we are taught by our builders and masters that the heavier the smash, the smaller the damage, and because the requirements of material should be attended to.”

and so on and so on. the new seamanship: when in doubt try to ram fairly — whatever’s before you. very simple. if only the titanic had rammed that piece of ice (which was not a monstrous berg) fairly, every puffing paragraph would have been vindicated in the eyes of the credulous public which pays. but would it have been? well, i doubt it. i am well aware that in the eighties the steamship arizona, one of the “greyhounds of the ocean” in the jargon of that day, did run bows on against a very unmistakable iceberg, and managed to get into port on her collision bulkhead. but the arizona was not, if i remember rightly, 5,000 tons register, let alone 45,000, and she was not going at twenty knots per hour. i can’t be perfectly certain at this distance of time, but her sea-speed could not have been more than fourteen at the outside. both these facts made for safety. and, even if she had been engined to go twenty knots, there would not have been behind that speed the enormous mass, so difficult to check in its impetus, the terrific weight of which is bound to do damage to itself or others at the slightest contact.

i assure you it is not for the vain pleasure of talking about my own poor experiences, but only to illustrate my point, that i will relate here a very unsensational little incident i witnessed now rather more than twenty years ago in sydney, n.s.w. ships were beginning then to grow bigger year after year, though, of course, the present dimensions were not even dreamt of. i was standing on the circular quay with a sydney pilot watching a big mail steamship of one of our best-known companies being brought alongside. we admired her lines, her noble appearance, and were impressed by her size as well, though her length, i imagine, was hardly half that of the titanic.

she came into the cove (as that part of the harbour is called), of course very slowly, and at some hundred feet or so short of the quay she lost her way. that quay was then a wooden one, a fine structure of mighty piles and stringers bearing a roadway — a thing of great strength. the ship, as i have said before, stopped moving when some hundred feet from it. then her engines were rung on slow ahead, and immediately rung off again. the propeller made just about five turns, i should say. she began to move, stealing on, so to speak, without a ripple; coming alongside with the utmost gentleness. i went on looking her over, very much interested, but the man with me, the pilot, muttered under his breath: “too much, too much.” his exercised judgment had warned him of what i did not even suspect. but i believe that neither of us was exactly prepared for what happened. there was a faint concussion of the ground under our feet, a groaning of piles, a snapping of great iron bolts, and with a sound of ripping and splintering, as when a tree is blown down by the wind, a great strong piece of wood, a baulk of squared timber, was displaced several feet as if by enchantment. i looked at my companion in amazement. “i could not have believed it,” i declared. “no,” he said. “you would not have thought she would have cracked an egg — eh?”

i certainly wouldn’t have thought that. he shook his head, and added: “ah! these great, big things, they want some handling.”

some months afterwards i was back in sydney. the same pilot brought me in from sea. and i found the same steamship, or else another as like her as two peas, lying at anchor not far from us. the pilot told me she had arrived the day before, and that he was to take her alongside to-morrow. i reminded him jocularly of the damage to the quay. “oh!” he said, “we are not allowed now to bring them in under their own steam. we are using tugs.”

a very wise regulation. and this is my point — that size is to a certain extent an element of weakness. the bigger the ship, the more delicately she must be handled. here is a contact which, in the pilot’s own words, you wouldn’t think could have cracked an egg; with the astonishing result of something like eighty feet of good strong wooden quay shaken loose, iron bolts snapped, a baulk of stout timber splintered. now, suppose that quay had been of granite (as surely it is now)— or, instead of the quay, if there had been, say, a north atlantic fog there, with a full-grown iceberg in it awaiting the gentle contact of a ship groping its way along blindfold? something would have been hurt, but it would not have been the iceberg.

apparently, there is a point in development when it ceases to be a true progress — in trade, in games, in the marvellous handiwork of men, and even in their demands and desires and aspirations of the moral and mental kind. there is a point when progress, to remain a real advance, must change slightly the direction of its line. but this is a wide question. what i wanted to point out here is — that the old arizona, the marvel of her day, was proportionately stronger, handier, better equipped, than this triumph of modern naval architecture, the loss of which, in common parlance, will remain the sensation of this year. the clatter of the presses has been worthy of the tonnage, of the preliminary paeans of triumph round that vanished hull, of the reckless statements, and elaborate descriptions of its ornate splendour. a great babble of news (and what sort of news too, good heavens!) and eager comment has arisen around this catastrophe, though it seems to me that a less strident note would have been more becoming in the presence of so many victims left struggling on the sea, of lives miserably thrown away for nothing, or worse than nothing: for false standards of achievement, to satisfy a vulgar demand of a few moneyed people for a banal hotel luxury — the only one they can understand — and because the big ship pays, in one way or another: in money or in advertising value.

it is in more ways than one a very ugly business, and a mere scrape along the ship’s side, so slight that, if reports are to be believed, it did not interrupt a card party in the gorgeously fitted (but in chaste style) smoking-room — or was it in the delightful french cafe? — is enough to bring on the exposure. all the people on board existed under a sense of false security. how false, it has been sufficiently demonstrated. and the fact which seems undoubted, that some of them actually were reluctant to enter the boats when told to do so, shows the strength of that falsehood. incidentally, it shows also the sort of discipline on board these ships, the sort of hold kept on the passengers in the face of the unforgiving sea. these people seemed to imagine it an optional matter: whereas the order to leave the ship should be an order of the sternest character, to be obeyed unquestioningly and promptly by every one on board, with men to enforce it at once, and to carry it out methodically and swiftly. and it is no use to say it cannot be done, for it can. it has been done. the only requisite is manageableness of the ship herself and of the numbers she carries on board. that is the great thing which makes for safety. a commander should be able to hold his ship and everything on board of her in the hollow of his hand, as it were. but with the modern foolish trust in material, and with those floating hotels, this has become impossible. a man may do his best, but he cannot succeed in a task which from greed, or more likely from sheer stupidity, has been made too great for anybody’s strength.

the readers of the english review, who cast a friendly eye nearly six years ago on my reminiscences, and know how much the merchant service, ships and men, has been to me, will understand my indignation that those men of whom (speaking in no sentimental phrase, but in the very truth of feeling) i can’t even now think otherwise than as brothers, have been put by their commercial employers in the impossibility to perform efficiently their plain duty; and this from motives which i shall not enumerate here, but whose intrinsic unworthiness is plainly revealed by the greatness, the miserable greatness, of that disaster. some of them have perished. to die for commerce is hard enough, but to go under that sea we have been trained to combat, with a sense of failure in the supreme duty of one’s calling is indeed a bitter fate. thus they are gone, and the responsibility remains with the living who will have no difficulty in replacing them by others, just as good, at the same wages. it was their bitter fate. but i, who can look at some arduous years when their duty was my duty too, and their feelings were my feelings, can remember some of us who once upon a time were more fortunate.

it is of them that i would talk a little, for my own comfort partly, and also because i am sticking all the time to my subject to illustrate my point, the point of manageableness which i have raised just now. since the memory of the lucky arizona has been evoked by others than myself, and made use of by me for my own purpose, let me call up the ghost of another ship of that distant day whose less lucky destiny inculcates another lesson making for my argument. the douro, a ship belonging to the royal mail steam packet company, was rather less than one-tenth the measurement of the titanic. yet, strange as it may appear to the ineffable hotel exquisites who form the bulk of the first-class cross-atlantic passengers, people of position and wealth and refinement did not consider it an intolerable hardship to travel in her, even all the way from south america; this being the service she was engaged upon. of her speed i know nothing, but it must have been the average of the period, and the decorations of her saloons were, i dare say, quite up to the mark; but i doubt if her birth had been boastfully paragraphed all round the press, because that was not the fashion of the time. she was not a mass of material gorgeously furnished and upholstered. she was a ship. and she was not, in the apt words of an article by commander c. crutchley, r.n.r., which i have just read, “run by a sort of hotel syndicate composed of the chief engineer, the purser, and the captain,” as these monstrous atlantic ferries are. she was really commanded, manned, and equipped as a ship meant to keep the sea: a ship first and last in the fullest meaning of the term, as the fact i am going to relate will show.

she was off the spanish coast, homeward bound, and fairly full, just like the titanic; and further, the proportion of her crew to her passengers, i remember quite well, was very much the same. the exact number of souls on board i have forgotten. it might have been nearly three hundred, certainly not more. the night was moonlit, but hazy, the weather fine with a heavy swell running from the westward, which means that she must have been rolling a great deal, and in that respect the conditions for her were worse than in the case of the titanic. some time either just before or just after midnight, to the best of my recollection, she was run into amidships and at right angles by a large steamer which after the blow backed out, and, herself apparently damaged, remained motionless at some distance.

my recollection is that the douro remained afloat after the collision for fifteen minutes or thereabouts. it might have been twenty, but certainly something under the half-hour. in that time the boats were lowered, all the passengers put into them, and the lot shoved off. there was no time to do anything more. all the crew of the douro went down with her, literally without a murmur. when she went she plunged bodily down like a stone. the only members of the ship’s company who survived were the third officer, who was from the first ordered to take charge of the boats, and the seamen told off to man them, two in each. nobody else was picked up. a quartermaster, one of the saved in the way of duty, with whom i talked a month or so afterwards, told me that they pulled up to the spot, but could neither see a head nor hear the faintest cry.

but i have forgotten. a passenger was drowned. she was a lady’s maid who, frenzied with terror, refused to leave the ship. one of the boats waited near by till the chief officer, finding himself absolutely unable to tear the girl away from the rail to which she dung with a frantic grasp, ordered the boat away out of danger. my quartermaster told me that he spoke over to them in his ordinary voice, and this was the last sound heard before the ship sank.

the rest is silence. i daresay there was the usual official inquiry, but who cared for it? that sort of thing speaks for itself with no uncertain voice; though the papers, i remember, gave the event no space to speak of: no large headlines — no headlines at all. you see it was not the fashion at the time. a seaman-like piece of work, of which one cherishes the old memory at this juncture more than ever before. she was a ship commanded, manned, equipped — not a sort of marine ritz, proclaimed unsinkable and sent adrift with its casual population upon the sea, without enough boats, without enough seamen (but with a parisian cafe and four hundred of poor devils of waiters) to meet dangers which, let the engineers say what they like, lurk always amongst the waves; sent with a blind trust in mere material, light-heartedly, to a most miserable, most fatuous disaster.

and there are, too, many ugly developments about this tragedy. the rush of the senatorial inquiry before the poor wretches escaped from the jaws of death had time to draw breath, the vituperative abuse of a man no more guilty than others in this matter, and the suspicion of this aimless fuss being a political move to get home on the m.t. company, into which, in common parlance, the united states government has got its knife, i don’t pretend to understand why, though with the rest of the world i am aware of the fact. perhaps there may be an excellent and worthy reason for it; but i venture to suggest that to take advantage of so many pitiful corpses, is not pretty. and the exploiting of the mere sensation on the other side is not pretty in its wealth of heartless inventions. neither is the welter of marconi lies which has not been sent vibrating without some reason, for which it would be nauseous to inquire too closely. and the calumnious, baseless, gratuitous, circumstantial lie charging poor captain smith with desertion of his post by means of suicide is the vilest and most ugly thing of all in this outburst of journalistic enterprise, without feeling, without honour, without decency.

but all this has its moral. and that other sinking which i have related here and to the memory of which a seaman turns with relief and thankfulness has its moral too. yes, material may fail, and men, too, may fail sometimes; but more often men, when they are given the chance, will prove themselves truer than steel, that wonderful thin steel from which the sides and the bulkheads of our modern sea-leviathans are made.