The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-04-11 00:00:00

11 NORTHERN

avail the case, as they were not seamen. That would;
therefore, be the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Itead submitted that no case had been made out.

The Bench having occupied a short time in consultation,
enquired if there was any further evidence.
Mr. Shillinglaw replied that he was not prepared with
any further.
Mr Read rose to address the bench for the defence, and
commenced by saying that the information against Capt.
Forbes was that he did not let go the anchor. It had
been proved that the anchor was let go, and of course that
ended the case. The only question that arose—and that
he was willing to answer—was, ought the anchor to
have been let go at any other time than when it was
let go? On this question they had the evidence of the
chief officer—a man of great experience, who had been
ten years master of a ship, the master of a steamer, an
officer on board the Great Britain, and held a first-class
master's certificate; and this experienced navigator gave
it as his opinion that if the anchor had been let go when
the ship missed stays not only would the ship have been
lost, but, the lives of every soul on board. How did the
case stand ? The ship was sailing towards the land with
a gentle breeze, and by tacking in the manner they did a
considerable distance had been saved. They were running
at the rate of four or four and a half knots per hour when
the third mate, the officer on duty, apprised the captain
that he saw a fog-bank ahead. The captain might have
been on the look-out at this time for all they had heard or

the third officer knew, for directly he was-called by Mr.
Saxby, and pointed out what he considered to be a fog-
bank, the captain's more experienced eve detected that it
was the land. But what did Captain Forbes dl ? Why,
with cool judgment he ordered all hands out ready to
put the ship about, and it was not for a full quarter of an
hour that the order of " about-ship " was given by him,
which plainly enough showed that there was no neglect on
his part in standing so far in to shore. The only question,
as it appeared to him (Mr. Read), was, who were to be
the judges—experienced men like the captain and chief
officer, or the boatswain and Mr. Melville? for there had
been no imputation that the ship had been run on shore
intentionally. The wind blowing at the time must have
been a most extraordinary one, if they took the story of
the boatswain, for it lulled as they approached the land,
and in a few minutes after, when the head of the ship
was off the land, it blew fresh. It had been clearly shown
that the captain was on deck during the whole of the
time; and he was coolly giving his orders, and that at a
certain time, without any hurry, the order was given to
" about ship." The wind failed at the moment, and
instead of the ship coming about, she " missed
stays." Had the captain dropped his anchor
at this moment, as the boatswain said he
would have done, it was the opinion of experienced men
that every soul must have perished. The captain then
" weared" the ship, and succeeding in getting her head
round clean off the shore, and she was paying off and at
the rate of three knots an hour. Should he have let
down the anchor then, when there was every prospect of
the ship running off? The captain thought he was safe
then, when he had got the ship round, and what pre-
vented him from being safe ? Why, a hidden sandbank not
marked in any chart with which their worships, as
experienced men, were acquainted. And so the present
charge resolved itself into this,—Captain Forbes ought
to have let go his anchor before he came to a spit of land
which neither he nor anybody else knew was there.
The only question that arose in the captain's own
mind on the occurrence was whether he ought
to have let go the anchor at all or no. The
chief officer said he ought not, but the captain said
yes, and the only question was which was right. How
the captain was to be blamed for neglect of duty in not
letting his anchor go under such circumstances he (Mr.
Read) was at a loss to comprehend. They all knew how
mistaken landsmen were in estimating the distance of
land at sea, and so no value could be set upon the evidence
of its proximity given by the passengers. Because Capt.
Forbes had been so unfortunate as to lose his ship he was
to be dragged about from court to court at the complaints
of such men as a boatswain, and the Mr. Melville who
had made such an exhibition of himself with regard to the
beef and pork. With respect to the boatswain, he
said it openly and advisedly, for he had received a
note from Mr. Mackintosh, the landlord of the
British Hotel, informing him of the fact that
the passengers had bribed him to swear particular
things. He said this openly, and, if it were necessary,
Mr. Mackintosh, a man well known, would be prepared
to substantiate on oath what he had written ; and the
boatswain, in his cross-examination, admitted that he had
been drinking with the passengers in the British Hotel.
Mr. Read referred to the palpable contradiction which
the boatswain had given to his own evidence with regard
to the Schomberg missing stays on the passage from Liver-
pool, and remarked that if such had been the case—if the
vessel had missed stays—the boatswain must have been
present, for it was his duty to be on deck when the ship
was put about, and yet he had sworn that he was
not on deck at the time, but that he had heard so.
The act complained of was an act done, and must either
have been wilful or otherwise. It was alleged that the
anchor was not let go at the proper time, but was this
wilful ? Where was the evidence to show it ? Where
were the motives which could have induced Captain
Forbes to strand so noble a ship ? He contended that
there was not a shadow of evidence of wilfulness ; and
therefore he would not take up any more time of the
court ; but he confessed that he did feel anxious
about Captain Forbes, that his reputation should not
be blasted by their Worships attaching any weight to the
opinion which had been given by a boatswain tkat day.
He did not see that he had anything to contradict;
but should their Worships think to the contrary, that the
evidence supported the information, or that the slightest
blame attached to Captain Forbes, he would ask them to
adjourn the case, to enable him to bring witnesses to
meet any suspicion which their Worships might have
remaining in their minds. He would also produce Mr.
Mackintosh, if they thought there was anything in the
evidence of the boatswain —who was the only man who
had spoken against the captain—for this he should con-
sider to be due to his client as well as to himself.

At the conclusion of Mr. Read's address, the bench
adjourned the court for half an hour, to enable them to

consider the course they should adopt. The court
resumed at the expiration of that time.

The Bench said it appeared from the remarks of Mr.
Read that he rested his application for a dismissal of the
case upon the specific expression used in the information
" not letting go the anchor," The terms of the informa-
tion, however, were in strict accordance with the terms
of the act, and included all acts consistent with the
safety of the ship. It might be that as not letting go
the anchor had been distinctly set out in the summons,
that Mr. Read had been misled by it, in not being pre-
pared with evidence on other points, and if so, if he wished
it, the case would be remanded. The opinion of the bench
was that one matter required to be cleared up ; in fact,
that it had not been shown that the anchors were in
readiness, or that it was impracticable to prepare them.
Mr. Read submitted that, whether ;the anchors were
bent or no, it had not been shown that any act could have
been done with them which would have saved the ship.
He desired, however, that, if their worships adjourned
the case, they should know distinctly what they had to
answer.

The Bench said this was only a preliminary investigation,
and therefore it would be competent to them to take evi-
dence concerning the neglect of any act which was proper
to have been done to secure the safety of the ship.
Mr. Read hoped the bench would point out what points
they thought required to be met.
The Bench replied that they were of opinion, from the
evidence already given, that the defendant had omitted to
perform certain acts, such as having his anchors clear and
ready to be let go. and that he had altogether omitted to
show that it was unnecessary to have the anchors clear.
The further hearing of the case would therefore be adjourned
to Tuesday next, at eleven o'clock, in order to give Captain
Forbes an opportuninty of bringing forward evidence on
these points.
The case against the third mate was also adjourned to the
same day, to be called on at the conclusion of the captain's
case. The information against the third mate (Mr. Saaby
is as follows :

For that he did, on or a'-tout the 25th of December last past,
being at the time third mate of the British ship Schomberg, by
neglect of duty as such mate, omitted to do certain acts, to wit,
to keep a careful look-out on board the said vessel, Bach act being,
among others, lawful and proper to be done by you to preserve the
said vessl from the danger of immediate loss, and whereby the
lives and limbs of parsons belonging to and on board the said vesse
were endangered, contrary to the form of the statute in that case'
made and provide].

On the case being called on, on the second day
_ _

Mr. Read said, the charges which he had to meet were—
that the chains were not bent to the anchors, and the
anchors not, ready to be let go, The only evidence on this
point adverse to the captain was that of the boatswain, and
with regard to his evidence he would produce Mr. Mackin-
tosh, who would prove that negotiations had actually been
made in his house between the passengers and boatswain,
and a bribe given concerning the evidence he was to give on
the question. He was ready farther to prove not only that
the anchors were ready, but that everything requisite to the
safety of the ship was done. The 229th section of the act,
—that on which the information was laid—demanded that
the act omitted to be done should be such as
to endanger the safety of the ship ; and this
being the law of the case, it was no matter to this case if they
had no anchor or cable on board if such anchor or cable had
not been shown to be necessary to the saving of the
ship from loss. It had not been shown that the non-
bending of the anchor, or not letting the anchor go before
it was let go, tended to the immediate loss of the ship. Had
the anchor been bent five or six days before, would the ship
have been saved ? The evidence on this question left it as
a matter for nautical skill to determine whether the anchor
ought to have been let go at all or not. The loss of the
ship had been clearly traced to her striking on a hidden
sandbank, which no person knew was there. He was in a
position to show by evidence that every thing requisite to
be done in the matter was dons by the captain and officers
of the ship. He contended that the evidence did
not support the charge of such neglect as endangered the
safety of the ship, and as was required to be produced by the
act. He would make one remark with regard to the man-
ner in which these prosecutions were got up. He said it
advisc d'y, that it had been pr )mised to the witnesses that after
these prosecutions against Captain Forbes were concluded
theyishould receive appointments under government ; and
he could not but express the severest censure on the manner
in which the evidence in this prosecution had been got up.
He hoped their worships would consider these points calmly
before calling upon him to enter upon the evidence.
The Bench, having deliberated for a short time, said Mr.
Read had stated mush to shake the evidenoe of the boats-