The Wrecking of the “Bremensis” in 1868 and the Court-martial of Captain Arthur Wilmshurst (1817 – 1891)

Introduction

Arthur Wilmshurst was born into a middle-class family in November, 1817, in Warwick where his father, John, was a surgeon with the 1^st Warwick Militia.  His relatives were represented in the Church and the medical and legal professions.  Arthur was the fifth child and fourth boy in a family of nine.  He entered the Royal Navy and had a moderately successful naval career, eventually (after retirement) reaching the rank of rear-admiral but without his Navy life generally being marked by dramatic events.  It could be said that he rose without trace.  That is, until the fateful year of 1868.  He was Acting Governor of Ascension in August of that year when the barque “Bremensis” ran aground on the northern point of the island. 

The following story is an account of the events which led to the wrecking of the “Bremensis” and the bizarre happenings surrounding her salvage and sale on this British outpost, which resulted in Arthur Wilmshurst being returned as a prisoner to Portsmouth for trial by court-martial on HMS Victory.  The events, both before and during the proceedings of the court-martial aroused great public interest and consumed many column inches in the press.  But over and above the sensational aspects of the case, fundamental issues concerning legal precedence, public confidence in the concept of “an officer and a gentleman” and the forms and procedures of courts-martial came to the fore.  Captain Arthur Wilmshurst was exonerated by his peers of the charges laid against him, but he hardly emerged with his reputation intact.

Ascension Island

Ascension Island is located close to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, approximately halfway between West Africa and Brazil.  The island was discovered and named by the Portuguese on Ascension Day, 1501.  It is a roughly triangular, volcanic island about 9 miles across at its widest point.  The last eruption on Ascension was probably in the 16^th century.   In the mid-19^th century the island was barren with very little vegetation and its surface was largely covered by clinker fields.  Unsurprisingly, there was no organised settlement of this desolate land until 1815, when the British claimed the island for the King and established a naval garrison.  This was a precaution against any attempt to use Ascension as a base from which to spring Napoleon Bonaparte from imprisonment on St Helena, 800 miles to the south east.  Thus, the Royal Navy came to be in control of Ascension, a “stone frigate”. 

A garrison of marines was sent to the island in 1823 and command of the territory was delegated to the commodore of the West Africa Squadron, which was involved in the suppression of the slave trade along the neighbouring African coast.  The squadron established a victualling station on Ascension to support this operation.  Progressively, with the increase in human visitation, the island acquired an alien fauna and flora, some species having been introduced deliberately, such as goats and Guinea Fowl and some by accident.  After the British arrived, merchant shipping occasionally called at the island for supplies and water, though less so than at St Helena.  There was also an irregular flow of military vessels and merchant ships delivering supplies for the residents.  The only regular visitors were mail steamers on the route between the UK and the Cape of Good Hope.

The “Golden Star”

The “Golden Star” was a 1359-ton burthen, softwood barque built at St John, New Brunswick, Canada by Gass and Stewart in January 1865. She was sent to Liverpool for sale, as many St John ships were, shortly afterwards under the command of Captain Lyons, arriving in the Mersey on 16 March.  On the way she suffered storm damage, losing her jibboom and head sails.  She took with her a cargo predominantly of timber for sale in Liverpool, but which also including two pairs of moose horns and one pair of cariboo horns!  The vessel was then offered for sail but languished, unsold, in the Canada Dock until about December 1865 when she was moved to Birkenhead.  It was from there that she was finally bought at the end of the month by AF Eggers & Co and re-registered as the “Bremensis”.  Albrecht F Eggers had been born in Bremen, Germany about 1834 but was a merchant in Liverpool, at least between 1861 and 1881, where he played a full part in the civic life of the city.  Mr Eggers’ business speciality was variously described as general, cotton or tobacco merchant.  The vessel, was named after Adamus Bremensis (Adam of Bremen) a medieval chronicler.  Eggers & Co had owned at least one previous vessel, the “Kenilworth”.

Albrecht Eggers recruited Thomas Webster as master of the “Bremensis”.  He had been born in Runcorn, Cheshire, on the southern bank of the Mersey, on 25 September, 1836.  Thomas went to sea in 1853, gained his second mate’s certificate in 1859 and his master’s certificate in 1862.  Immediately before taking his berth as master of the “Bremensis”, on 1 January 1866, Thomas Webster married Mary Stansfield, the daughter of a cotton factory manager.  She travelled with him on his first voyage on the “Bremensis” and became pregnant during the journey.

The first voyage of the “Bremensis”

The “Bremensis”, under the command of Thomas Webster, made her first voyage to Aden.  While the vessel was at anchor off the Albert Pier, Liverpool on 16 March 1866, she was fouled by the vessel “Her Majesty”, just arrived in the Mersey from Calcutta.  The “Bremensis” lost her jibboom (again) and had to return to Birkenhead Docks for repairs before finally starting for the Red Sea on 29 March.  She was towed to the Tuskar Rock off County Wexford by the tug “Storm King” before setting sail. The vessel then travelled to Cardiff for a cargo of coal and arrived at Aden on 14 July.  From the Arabian Peninsula the “Bremensis” sailed on to Bombay arriving on 5 August and from India took the long drag across the Pacific Ocean to Callao, the port of Lima, Peru.  On 5 January 1867, “Bremensis” left Callao for the Chincha Islands about 200 miles south of Lima and home to some of the largest guano deposits in the world in the mid-18^th century.  Guano was increasingly being used as a crop fertiliser in Europe, though it carried the risk of importing plant disease.  Peruvian guano may have been responsible for the introduction of a virulent strain of potato blight to Ireland in the mid-1840s.  The “Bremensis” was anchored at the Chinchas for about three months while she took on her cargo of guano.  During this period, on 22 March, Mrs Mary Webster was delivered of twin boys, who were named Thomas and John.  The vessel then called back at Callao before sailing for France to deliver the guano to the port of St Nazaire.  From France, the “Bremensis” returned to Penarth (Cardiff) in South Wales for a further cargo of coal.

The second (and final) voyage of the “Bremensis” 

On 16^th October 1867, the “Bremensis” again departed for Bombay but on this occasion without Mrs Webster on board.  The vessel had a full cargo, her loaded weight being 1876 tons.  This was a financially significant venture, the charter rate being £3 1s 3d per ton, well over £3,000 for the cargo (equivalent to about £310,000 in 2017 money).  “Bremensis” arrived at the Indian port on 13 March 1868, discharged her cargo, loaded 6,181 bales of cotton, coir yarn and a quantity of seeds and left for Liverpool on 26 May.  The value of the new cargo was high at about £120,000 (>£12 million in 2017 money), the most valuable component being the bales of raw cotton.

“Bremensis” sailed across the Indian Ocean, around the Cape of Good Hope and up the Atlantic towards Britain.  After ten months away, Captain Webster was probably anxious to get home as quickly as possible to see his wife and young family, though he planned to call at Ascension to take on fresh water.  In the late afternoon of 11 August, 1868, the vessel was approaching Ascension from the south east and planning to pass around the northern point of the island on her approach to one of the island’s watering places.  She was running before the wind with a full set of sails deployed and the weather was moderate.  Apparently by a misjudgement (both master and mate were censured by a subsequent court of inquiry), the vessel was taken too close inshore on rounding the northern point and she grounded at about 180 yards from land close to English Bay.  Being a volcanic island, the sea bed at Ascension sloped away rapidly offshore.  Had the vessel been about twice that distance out she would certainly have safely rounded the island.  As it was she struck, never to be released from the destructive power of the sea and the stage was set for some remarkable events.

The ”Rajasthan”

Several other vessels played bit-parts in the unfolding Ascension drama.  One of them was the “Rajasthan”, a 627-ton register barque with a crew of 22, captained by John Goodridge and with Samuel Robert Trenaman as her First Officer.  She was contracted to take out stores, including bread, beef and compressed hay, from London for the garrison on Ascension.  She left London about 1 May 1868 and called at Gravesend before sailing for the South Atlantic.  The “Rajasthan” arrived at Ascension about 6 August and discharged her cargo using lighters.  She was still in the Georgetown Roads when the stranding of the “Bremensis” occurred five days later.

The Naval Career of Arthur Wilmshurst up to 1868

Arthur Wilmshurst joined the Navy in 1831 at the age of 15.  He was a midshipman on HMS Wanderer, a 16-gun brig-sloop when, on 5 August 1839, he passed the examination for entry to the Royal Naval College in Portsmouth.  After successfully completing his training, Wilmshurst was appointed mate in HMS Excellent, the Navy’s gunnery training establishment, based in the hulk of what had been HMS Boyne moored in Portsmouth Harbour.  Later, in 1841, he became mate on the newly-launched, sixth-rate HMS Spartan, which was being fitted out for the North America and West India station.  At the 1841 Census Arthur Wilmshurst was included in the return for the Royal Naval Dockyard, Portsea.  (The Royal Navy’s rating system in the age of sail was a way of classifying warships by their size and armaments, the lower the rating, the greater the displacement and the more numerous the guns.  A sixth-rate, the smallest rate, had a crew of about 200, displaced about 500 tons and typically had 28 guns.)  Wilmshurst’s appointment in HMS Spartan concluded in 1845. 

Arthur Wilmshurst returned to England and to HMS Excellent, where he was again mate.  The vessel was at this time commanded by Rear-Admiral Henry Dulcie Chads senior (1788 – 1868), who reformed the system of gunnery in the Royal Navy.  Also, during 1845 Arthur Wilmshurst served on HMS Queen, a 110-gun first-rate and the flag-ship of Sir John West. (Royal Navy officer ranks in the mid-19^th century went in the progression Lieutenant, Commander, Captain, Commodore, Rear Admiral, Vice-Admiral, Admiral.  A captain was said to have “made post” when appointed to a rated vessel.  The rank of Commodore was more of an appointment than a rank.  A Captain would be promoted to Rear-Admiral if he served in the Navy for long enough for those above him to have retired or died.)  On 30 December, 1845, Arthur Wilmshurst received his commission and assumed the rank of lieutenant.

The next appointment of Arthur Wilmshurst was again to HMS Excellent, followed, on 13 May, 1846, by a posting to HMS St Vincent, under Captain John Shepherd.  She was a 120-gun first-rate and the flagship of the Channel Squadron, commanded by Sir Francis Augustus Collier.  Wilmshurst’s third posting in 1846, on 6 November, was to HMS Albatross under Commander Arthur Farquhar.  This vessel was a 12-gun brig-sloop, which served in the East Indies and was later, in 1849, involved in fighting pirates in Borneo.  Arthur Farquhar eventually attained the rank of Admiral and was Commander-in-Chief, Plymouth.  (In retirement in Aberdeenshire he became a close friend of William Cunliffe Brooks – see “William Cunliffe Brooks and the Glen Tana Dream” on this blogsite).  At the 1851 Census on 30 March, Arthur Wilmshurst was on shore in England, staying with his relative George Wilmshurst, a surgeon.  He then received a posting to HMS Excellent again, followed by a sea posting to HMS Trafalgar, a 120-gun. Caledonia class, first-rate, where he remained for almost four years.

At the end of 1854 Lieutenant Wilmshurst was promoted to commander and the following year he was appointed second in command to Lewis Tobias Jones on HMS Princess Royal, a 91-gun, second-rate operating in the Mediterranean. Commander Wilmshurst served in her for four years.  Wilmshurst’s next appointment was in 1857 to HMS Racehorse, an 18-gun sloop. In May 1859, Commander Wilmshurst moved to another vessel serving in the Mediterranean, HMS London, a 72-gun second-rate, which had been converted to screw-propulsion the previous year.  He was second in command to Henry Dulcie Chads junior (1819 – 1906).  At the 1861 Census, Wilmshurst was recorded as being on board HMS London at sea in the Grecian Archipelago. 

Promotion to captain came in 1861 and between that year and 1864 he was on shore on half pay.  He then served briefly on HMS Royal Adelaide early in 1864.  She was originally a 104-gun first-rate but was converted to a store ship in 1860.  This was followed by appointment to HMS Research, an iron-clad, screw-sloop, where he served for a year and a half.  During his command, HMS Research was used to test Commander Scott’s wrought iron gun carriage and platform.  Also, in 1865, Captain Wilmshurst served briefly in HMS Fisgard, which was moored at Woolwich and used to train engineers.  This was followed in 1866 by a brief spell in command of HMS Prince Albert, a shallow-draught coastal defence vessel.

It is important to note that while this extensive range of appointments had provided Captain Arthur Wilmshurst with diverse experiences, he had not really been on active service, he had not achieved significant command and he had not been involved in any historic naval incidents.  What he had done was to serve under and rub shoulders with some powerful personalities who achieved prominence in Queen Victoria’s Navy.  These contacts were to serve him well.

Captain Arthur Wilmshurst, HMS Flora and Ascension Island

The event which was to propel Captain Arthur Wilmshurst to prominence, though not a prominence that would enhance his modest reputation, occurred on 10 December 1866, when he was appointed to command HMS Flora.  She was a 44-gun fifth rate, wooden-hulled, wind-powered vessel launched in 1844, but from 1851 serving on harbour duty.  In 1866 she was employed as guard ship at Ascension. The ship had a crew of 198 men and, in 1868, there were also ten marines, one sergeant and one corporal on board.  Arthur Wilmshurst succeeded Captain Joseph Grant Bickford and took up his post in this insignificant outpost of Empire in the South Atlantic. 

It would probably be fair to describe Ascension as a backwater.  Merchantmen passed by frequently but only occasionally called and then only briefly.  The most regular visitors were the mail steamships of the Union Steam Ship Company Ltd, which held the mail contract for carriage of mails between Britain and the Cape Colony.  These vessels, the “Norseman”, the “Celt”, the “Cambrian”, the “Roman”, the “Mauritius”, the “Briton”, the “Saxon” and the “Anglian” kept a predictable two-weekly schedule transporting passengers and freight, in addition to mail.  Of these vessels, the “Roman” and the “Anglian” played bit-parts too in what was to transpire in the second half of 1868.  There were also irregular visits from Royal Navy vessels of the African and Mediterranean squadrons, occasional troop ship calls on the way to and from the Cape and India, and resupply visits by both civilian and Navy stores vessels.  But Ascension was not a busy place and was no longer of great strategic importance by the mid-1860s.

Arthur Wilmshurst, Acting Governor of Ascension Island

Ascension was garrisoned by the Royal Navy including, in 1868, about 100 Royal Marines.  It had no indigenous population and no civilian administration.  Indeed in 1868 it only had three civilians living on the island.  Control and administration of the affairs of the island were in the hands of the Commodore of the West Africa Squadron, Commodore Dowell, CB, whose flagship was HMS Rattlesnake.  However, he was frequently away from the island patrolling along the West African coast.  In the absence of Commodore Dowell, Captain Arthur Wilmshurst of the Ascension guardship, HMS Flora was Acting Governor of the island.

Arthur Wilmshurst did not flinch from exercising the powers with which he perceived this role endowed him.  He also made a point of informing all and sundry of their legal position on entering the island.  A notice was posted at the Georgetown landing and read thus, “The Island of Ascension, being the property of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty and bona fide part and parcel of Her Majesty’s ship Flora, persons are to bear in mind when landing on any part of the island they place themselves under martial law in the same manner as though they had actually gone on board the Flora herself.  A Wilmshurst.”  Had his new role gone to Captain Wilmshurst’s head?  The Committee of Lloyds Salvage Association certainly thought so, later describing Wilmshurst as exercising “Liliputian sovereignty”.

RT Webb & Co, Ascension

The three civilians within this cordon militaire were Mr Matthews, of RT Webb and Co, his secretary and his servant.  Matthews ran a supply store, meeting the wants of the African Squadron and of the Naval station at Ascension.  The store had been in operation for some years before the arrival of Captain Wilmshurst.  Mr Webb was also the agent on the island for Lloyds of London.

The Ascension Canteen

One member of staff inherited by Captain Wilmshurst when he arrived on Ascension was Mr Lewis, the island’s paymaster.  (The rank of paymaster was equivalent to lieutenant.)  About the beginning of 1866, long before Captain Wilmshurst’s arrival, Lewis set up a trading canteen in direct competition with Webb’s store.  It was financed with £400 from dues paid by visiting vessels for services such as ballasting.  The money was used to buy supplies from England.  When Wilmshurst discovered this initiative by Lewis, he became a supporter of the venture.  A series of criticisms of the high prices and inferiority of the goods supplied by Webb & Co soon circulated on the island and reached the ears of Mr Matthews.  He relayed the information back to Webb & Co in London and they wrote a letter of complaint to the Admiralty in April 1867, accompanied by testimonials from several Navy officers.  The Admiralty duly replied confirming that the criticisms concerning
 price were not substantiated.  “After a careful examination of the subject they are satisfied with your explanation and do not consider the prices charged by you excessive.”  This admission by the Admiralty did not save the Ascension store from further attack.  Mr Matthews had already received notice from Captain Wilmshurst to quit the island, dooming the store to oblivion.  A remarkable letter was sent by Captain Wilmshurst to Matthews.

“Ascension March 17, 1868.  Sir, While serving you with the notice to quit the premises which you now hold in the name of your company, I feel it incumbent on me to testify to the high esteem in which I hold you individually and which feeling is to the best of my belief also that of the generality of the residents on the island and also of those serving in the coastal squadron.  The closing of your store is in no way imputable to any misconduct of your own or any of your subordinates; on the contrary I believe it would have been closed long ago had its interests not been watched by and under the charge of a person of your irreproachable character.  Had it not been intended to change the system of supplying the wants of the island from a sutler’s store to a canteen I do not think it would have been possible to have selected a person more fit to carry on the business.  Whatever faults may have existed in the quality or prices of the goods supplied from your store, (this statement was made before the Admiralty had conceded that Webb’s prices were not excessive, but it shows that Wilmshurst was at least in agreement with the claims, if not their author) I presume they were out of your province to correct.  I have always found you ready to meet my views and you have always been most civil and obliging and further in this most quarrelsome place I have never heard your name mentioned even remotely in any way connected with any of the many squabbles that arise almost daily.  I remain your sincere well-wisher.  A Wilmshurst.  Mr Matthews, Island Sutler, Ascension.”  (A sutler was a person who followed an army and sold provisions to the soldiers.  “Canteen” was being used here in its 18^th century sense as a shop selling provisions in a barracks or garrison town.)

It is difficult to see this letter as better than a collection of mealy-mouthed platitudes.  It could even be construed as dissembling on the part of Wilmshurst.  Certainly, the missive and its sentiments could be cast as a strategy to obscure the true reason for removing Webb & Co from the Ascension - the creation of a supply monopoly under Wilmshurst’s control.  Within a few months, Captain Wilmshurst would several times issue orders which could similarly be capable of interpretation as self-serving edicts.

The wrecking of the “Bremensis” and initial attempts at salvage

It is an interesting fact that the accounts, subsequently given by different witnesses, of the events about to unfold on Ascension in August 1868 were largely in agreement (there were small divergences) with each other. What was to become the issue to be decided was, “What was the true interpretation to be put upon those facts and actions?”  Two very different points of view would subsequently emerge.  So, factually, what happened on the evening of 11 August 1868 off the northern tip of Ascension and over the following ten weeks?

The “Bremensis” struck at about 5.30pm on 11 August 1868 on a reef close to English Bay.  By some means, the stranding of the “Bremensis” was quickly communicated to Captain Wilmshurst, who did not reside on his vessel, HMS Flora, but had accommodation ashore in the house of the Governor.  The order was given to Lieutenant Molloy to take the island’s underpowered tug, HMS Turtle, with John Hawkins, the boatswain of HMS Flora and 15 men, and go to the wreck site to save life, but not to attempt any other action that evening.  Molloy found the vessel still afloat but bumping heavily on the reef and with her sails furled.  He initially thought that she might be saved.  Despite his orders, he did take a hawser from the “Bremensis” and attempt to pull the ship back.  She moved a little, which prompted Captain Thomas Webster to unfurl all plain sail and HMS Turtle was set towing on the port bow.  However, this manoeuvre was unsuccessful in pulling the “Bremensis” clear of the reef and by 11pm she was driven further inshore and started striking heavily on the rocky ground.  Very quickly the vessel was holed and started to fill with water. The movement of the vessel made the crew fearful that the spars would start to fall, and Captain Webster worried that the ship might break up during the night.  It was too dangerous to stay on board and he ordered his men into the ship’s boats for evacuation to the shore.  Captain Webster and his first officer were the last to evacuate and remained on watch during the night.  Webster was keen not to abandon his ship, bearing in mind his responsibility for her and especially for her valuable cargo of cotton.  It was his intention to re-board his vessel the following morning.

Early the next day, 12 August, Captain Webster tried unsuccessfully to board his ship, which must have been rolling significantly.  The vessel’s movement, coupled with the inertia of the masts and spars, made it imperative that the masts should be brought down to reduce the risk of the hull breaking up.  Webster decided to travel to Clarence Bay (the location of Georgetown) to ask the authorities to use explosives to fell the masts.  On the way he met HMS Turtle under the command of Lieutenant Molloy.  Captain Arthur Wilmshurst was on board.  When asked to use explosives on the masts of the “Bremensis”, Wilmshurst said it was not possible because he lacked the appliances necessary.  (His men would later use explosives to blow the wreck apart in order to free more cotton.) The Turtle then proceeded to the wreck site with Wilmshurst and Webster in conversation.  The former immediately proposed to Webster that he should abandon his ship and cargo to him, but Webster declined, saying that he would not dare to do such a thing.  The relationship between the two men had not started well and would get progressively worse over the coming days.  In the absence of explosives, John Molloy had the fore- and main-masts cut away by volunteers.  (Another source said it was the main-mast, mizzentop-mast and gallant-masts which were felled.)  The “Bremensis” crew were engaged in getting their personal belongings ashore, together with spars and sails to make tents.

Captain Wilmshurst takes control

Captain Arthur Wilmshurst, in his position as Acting Governor of the island, exercised the authority that he perceived he possessed.  He gave orders that the crew of the “Bremensis” were to remain on shore and that salvage work on the wreck was to be carried out by men that he supplied.  He ordered Lieutenant Forrest, senior lieutenant on HMS Flora to send all available men (about 40) to the wreck.  A party from HMS Flora worked on the salvage of cotton every day until 19 August. On some days there was a contingent of Marines in the working party.  Captain Goodridge of the “Rajasthan” also sent a contingent of seven men to the wreck on 12 August to help with salvage. 

These diktats by Wilmshurst did not please the “Bremensis”, men who wanted to work on their own ship.  They made their dissatisfaction known to their master.  On the evening of 12 August, Captain Webster went to see Captain Wilmshurst at his residence.  Lieutenant Molloy was also present.  Webster asked that his men be allowed to work on salvage, but the request was refused.  According to Webster, Wilmshurst said that his advice (to abandon ship and cargo to Wilmshurst) had been declined and he would advise him no further.  At the least, Wilmshurst was acting in a high-handed and authoritarian manner and he was disinclined to work cooperatively with Webster.  He seemed to take Webster’s requests as challenges to his authority.  Captain Webster later claimed that if he had been given control of the tug and lighters and the freedom to deploy his own men in the salvage operation, he would have salved the bulk of the cotton cargo on the “Bremensis”.

Despite the order to remain on shore, some of the “Bremensis” crew went on board their vessel on the morning of 13 August and worked on saving sails, boats and stores, landing them at English Bay, adjacent to the wreck site.  In the afternoon of the same day, half the “Bremensis” party worked on saving cargo.  After 13 August, the “Bremensis” men were entirely excluded from their vessel.  A party of 15 men from the “Rajasthan” was also sent to work on the wreck on 13 August under the command of the second mate.  He tried to negotiate payment for the “Rajasthan” crew members with Captain Webster, but Webster would give no answer, presumably because he would have had to find money from his own pocket.  After that day none of the “Rajasthan” crew was involved in salvage work.  Like the crew on the “Bremensis”, they were instructed by Captain Wilmshurst not to board the wreck.

The deliberate under-employment of the “Bremensis” crew, their exclusion from their own vessel and later their forced idleness turned them mutinous and at one stage they struck work.  They could not wait to get away from the island.

Captain Wilmshurst and Captain Webster have a shouting match  

On 14 August, 1868 the relationship between Captain Webster and Captain Wilmshurst plumbed new depths.  In the afternoon Webster went on board the “Bremensis” where he found Lieutenant Molloy in charge of the HMS Flora working party.  Molloy told Webster that his orders were to exclude the “Bremernsis” crew from the salvage work on the wreck.  Webster again went to confront Wilmshurst in his residence and a heated interchange then took place.  He confirmed with Wilmshurst that he had issued the orders to exclude the “Bremensis” crew from salvage work, repeating the dissatisfaction felt by his men and asked again for his crew to be allowed onto the “Bremensis” but this was again refused.  Webster told Wilmshurst that he had not abandoned his ship and would not do so “while two bits of the ship held together”.  According to Webster he also asked if it was the intention of Wilmshurst to forcibly take possession of the wreck.  It is not recorded if an answer was given but Wilmshurst left Webster in no doubt as to who was in charge on the island and that Wilmshurst was intent on calling the shots.  “The island of Ascension was in every sense of the word a man of war and part and parcel of Her Majesty’s ship Flora.  He drew my attention to the pennant flying in front of his house and said that every man, dog, rat, cat, stick, or stone on that island belonged to Her Majesty and was under martial law and said further that I was not to dictate terms to him.  He asked me what I would do if he refused to give me any assistance.  I replied that I would save all I could in my own boats and when the ship broke up I would tow all I could ashore from the wreck and that I would anchor my boats off the wreck.  He said that I could not land a bale of cotton on the island without his permission and that I could not get a drink of water only through him.”  The one concession made by Wilmshurst, though insignificant in its impact, was that Webster might go on board the “Bremensis” and might suggest ways in which the salvage operation could be improved but that he was not to interfere in any way with those operations.  One of the meetings between Captain Webster and Captain Wilmshurst, probably the one held on 14 August, ended in a shouting match and Wilmshurst telling Webster to leave his office. This must have been a depressing time for Thomas Webster.  He had lost his ship, his wife and family were anxiously waiting at home to hear of his arrival in Liverpool and now he was faced with an inflexible and dictatorial Navy officer, who had the power to block his every move to salvage the cargo and equipment of the Bremensis, unless it was done in conformity with his oppressor’s orders.  Captain Webster was messing on HMS Flora at the time and, in his frustration with the situation in which he found himself, he impressed on the officers and men of the vessel that their work on the “Bremensis” was not a salvage case, which caused great annoyance, because that implied that they might not be paid for their work.

Division of Labour amongst the Crews

The division of labour that Captain Wilmshurst had devised was as follows.  HMS Flora sailors brought cotton out of the hold, loaded it on lighters and towed the lighters to shore, “Bremensis” sailors then dragged the bales of cotton through the surf to the beach and stacked them to dry.  However, Mr Webster was only given charge of the salvaged bales once he had executed a bond, demanded by Captain Wilmshurst, to pay salvage on them.  “Rajasthan”’s sailors had no role on the days between 13 and 21 August inclusive.  From 22 August to 4 September they were involved in loading cotton into their vessel for transport back to the UK and its sale for the benefit of the owners and underwriters.

Court of Inquiry into the loss of the “Bremensis”

About 16 August Captain Wilmshurst instituted a Naval court of inquiry, over which he presided, into the loss of the “Bremensis”.  The actual report of the court has not been recovered, but it was recorded as containing a degree of censure for both Captain Webster and his First Officer, Mr Stevenson. (Much later, Lloyds of London would ask the Board of Trade to mount a searching investigation into the loss of the “Bremensis” but the Board replied that, in their view, Mr Webster had been tried once and they had no power to try him again.)

Captain Wilmshurst suspends the work of salvage

Out of the blue, on 19 August, 1868 Captain Wilmshurst issued a new order that the work of the HMS Flora sailors on cotton salvage was to be suspended.  By this date about 2000 bales of cotton had been recovered from the wreck out of the 6,181 bales loaded in Bombay.  This action, whether or not justified, must have piled more pressure on Captain Thomas Webster to fall in line with Captain Wilmshurst’s wishes.  Every day that passed saw the remaining cotton in the “Bremensis” deteriorate further.  The hold was partly flooded, the wet cotton had started to rot causing a foul odour in the vessel and the sea daily threatened to break up the ship even further.  But the only labour allowed to work on cotton salvage was being withheld by the Acting Governor of the island.  Although his own men were on the beach kicking their heels, Webster was without labour to work on recovery.  The value of the vessel and especially its cargo was significantly reduced and diminishing by the day, due to these imposed conditions.  Captain Webster was meeting his own costs, because the owner of the “Bremensis” would neither pay for his keep and wages, nor the keep and wages of his crew, nor pay their passage home.   He felt he was forced by the circumstances to apply to Captain Wilmshurst for a survey of the wreck to be carried out for its condemnation.  Captain Goodridge too said he would have applied for a survey in the circumstances. This was the course of action taken by ships’ masters when there was a total loss of both ship and cargo.  That would not have been the situation of the “Bremensis” on 19 August if Wilmshurst had allowed salvage work to proceed unhindered.    Webster said he would not then have applied for a survey. 

Captain Webster contracts the “Rajasthan” to transport the salvaged cotton

Thomas Webster also needed to get the salved cotton away from Ascension, and the “Rajasthan” was the only vessel available to undertake the transport to England.  Captains Webster and Goodridge met to agree a charter-party for this work.  The agreement was signed in the office of Captain Wilmshurst on 19 August, but without his involvement in its terms.  It was Wilmshurst and his men who would benefit from the sale of the salvaged cotton as they would then be able to submit a claim for salvage.  The charter-party was agreed at a price of £1400 (>£144,000 in 2017 money).  The cotton was then shipped to the “Rajasthan” from the wreck site by sailors from HMS Flora using the tug HMS Turtle and lighters.  Captain Wilmshurst’s focus had shifted from recovering more cotton to getting the cotton which had already been salvaged, away from the island, even though 2/3 of the cargo was still aboard the “Bremensis” and the charter-party allowed 28 days for loading, more than enough to recover and take on board the “Rajasthan” a full cargo (more than 3,000 bales) of cotton.  There was no need for this urgency to load cotton, as an alternative to using the HMS Flora men on recovery of cotton from the “Bremensis”.  On and immediately after 19 August, the “Bremensis” crew sat on the beach at English Bay with literally nothing to do.  They too wanted to get away from Ascension as soon as possible.

Survey of the “Bremensis” wreck

On 22 August Captain Wilmshurst ordered a survey of the “Bremensis” and her cargo.  He appointed a survey party consisting of Lieutenant Molloy, Lieutenant Forrest, Mr Turner, HMS Flora’s carpenter and Captain Goodridge.  They went to the wreck the same day and found the vessel hogged (keel sagging at its ends due to strain), with its back broken in two places and with a hole in the side of the ship opposite the main hatchway, though which water was washing in and out.  The cotton in the main hold was largely free of water.  The “Bremensis”’ equipment, pumps anchors etc were still on board.  The party then retired from the wreck site to HMS Flora to consider their recommendation.  The three Royal Navy men all agreed that the ship should be sold, and the cargo salvaged, believing that much of the cotton could be saved.  Captain Goodridge, the practical Merchant Navy man, disagreed.  He said it was illegal to sell the vessel without also selling her cargo and, in any case, the remaining cargo was now of little value and possibly not worth salvaging.  The report, drafted by Mr Hay, the Paymaster on the Flora, was initially written to recommend sale of the vessel and salvage of the cargo, provided that labour was available.  The party left HMS Flora to sign the report in Lieutenant Molloy’s office but were met by Mr Lewis, Captain Wilmshurst’s mouthpiece.  When he learned of their recommendation he told them flatly, “That will not do.”  This must have put the three crew members of the Flora in a quandry.  Holding out against their superior, Captain Wilmshurst, would be bound to have negative consequences.  They retired to Lieutenant Molloy’s office to consult.  There both Captain Goodridge and Captain Webster told them that selling the ship without the cargo was illegal.  Webster was ordered out of the office so that they could decide their course of action in private.  They then changed the final report to recommend the sale of both ship and cargo on the grounds that the ship was breaking up.  Before submitting their report to Captain Wilmshurst, Forrest was sent on a mission to Wilmshurst to get a statement from him that he would provide no more labour.  This would be the cover for their modified decision, since salvage was not possible without labour.  Unfortunately, Wilmshurst’s reply was nuanced.  He would provide labour but only to the extent that service requirements would allow, and he could not guarantee that the level would be the same as provided previously.  But the survey party was stuck with the situation and the members signed the final report as written, the date being 24 August 1868.  The same evening, they had second thoughts and the following morning sent Lieutenant Forrest to Captain Wilmshurst to say that they wished to add the reason for their decision, that is a lack of labour, to the report.  Wilmshurst again declined the request, saying that he saw no justification for its inclusion.  Thus, Wilmshurst got the decision that he wanted but without being implicated in the report as an agent steering the decision.  By any standard, this was remarkable behaviour by Captain Wilmshurst.

Sale of the “Bremensis” and her remaining cargo  

Captain Wilmshurst did not hang about before arranging the sale of the “Bremensis” wreck and its remaining cargo, principally about 4,000 bales of cotton, by auction.  A notice announcing the sale, signed by Wilmshurst, was posted the same day, 26 August.  The sale took place only two days later, on 28 August 1868, a Saturday half-holiday.  Clearly, to be meaningful in optimising value for the owners and underwriters of both vessel and cargo, an auction sale required sufficient bidders to compete with each other.  With notice of only two days, on an isolated volcanic speck in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, which did not at that time enjoy telegraphic communications with the outside world, the only possible bidders were people already on the island.  Realistically only three of them were potential buyers, Captain Webster, formerly of the “Bremensis”, Captain Goodridge of the “Rajasthan” and Captain Wilmshurst, the Acting Governor of Ascension.  Webster knew that he could not mount a salvage operation because it could be blocked by Wilmshurst and he had no vessel on which he could ship sails, anchors, etc.  Goodridge knew that he too could not hazard money on a salvage operation requiring the cooperation of Wilmshurst.  He might have been interested in items of equipment, but they were not offered separately.  Wilmshurst was the only realistic buyer.

Captain Wilmshurst discussed the impending auction with James Lewis and Mr Woods, the Assistant Paymaster on the island and told them that he intended to buy the wreck for the Government but that he would need Mr Woods to bid for him.  Wilmshurst was clearly still mulling over how to act and how to present his intended actions.  Later that day, he went down to the Victualling Office and told Mr Woods that he had changed his mind and that he would bid for the vessel and cargo for himself.  Woods asked what sum he should bid and was told £20.  Woods then asked how high his bid could go and Wilmshurst told him that he would personally be present at the auction and would indicate this at the time.

The auctioneer was the storehouse foreman.  Though about a dozen people were present, including Mr Lewis, Captain Goodrich, Captain Webster and Captain Wilmshurst, there was no one from an outside territory, even St Helena.  There was only one bid, of £20, on behalf of Captain Wilmshurst, for ship and cargo.  (Different accounts suggest that it could have been either Woods or Lewis who entered Wilmshurst’s bid).  Thus, Wilmshurst became the owner of the “Bremensis” wreck, with her remaining equipment and 4000 bales of somewhat water-damaged cotton, for a price less than the value of a single ship’s anchor.  Immediately after the sale, Captain Wilmshurst offered two ship’s anchors to Captain Goodridge, but he declined to buy them.  “How much are they worth?”, asked Wilmshurst and the master of the “Rajasthan” suggested £50.  Later, before he left the island for London, on 5 September, 1868, Goodridge bought three ship’s boats at auction with a bid of £5.  His was the only offer and, because of the circumstances, another cheap purchase was made.

The working party from HMS Flora returns to the wreck

As soon as he became the owner of the Bremensis and her contents, Captain Wilmshurst gave orders for the Flora working party to return to the wreck and continue recovering cotton.  The instruction was that, except for a boat’s crew and four marines to guard the gangway, a full working party was to be sent out.  This happened every day from 29 August to 13 October.  The Flora men were supplemented by men from HMS Vestal and HMS Rattlesnake when these vessels returned to the island, the former arriving on 26 August and the latter on 22 September1868.  However, to avoid the charge that Navy manpower was being used for personal gain, the work was done on a volunteer basis, after normal island work hours had been completed. 

But this change in labour arrangements meant that since the men were now working for Captain Wilmshurst, rather than performing a public obligation, they would need to be paid by the Acting Governor.  He determined a rate of 10s per bale of cotton recovered and 10% of article value for equipment salvaged.  Wilmshurst also decided the division of spoils between members of the working party, which, it was later revealed, was not in line with Queen’s Regulations.  Hawkins, the Boatswain of the Flora was to get 2 shares, white seamen, 1 share and Kroomen (black African fishermen from what is now Liberia, recruited locally to ships’ crews by the Navy), a half share.  But now Wilmshurst encountered another problem, he personally lacked the wherewithal to pay his volunteer workers.  He confessed this embarrassing circumstance to Mr Woods, the Assistant Paymaster, who agreed to lend him the money.  The source of the money was not revealed.

The volunteers worked with some enthusiasm, presumably stimulated by the prospect of an immediate reward, rather than a more distant and uncertain payment from a salvage claim.  They were still using the tug and the lighters, though they were frequently held up by an insufficiency of transport.  The greater the amount of cotton removed, the more difficult it became to recover the residue.  By this time also the stench of rotting cotton was overpowering.  The vessel had settled further, the hold was flooded, submerging the bales and, possibly due to water absorption, the bales were jammed together.  Late in the salvage operation, the volunteers resorted to the drastic measure of blowing the vessel apart using explosives to release the remaining cargo.  While over 2,000 bales had been recovered between 12 and 19 August, only a further 600 to 700 were brought out of the wreck in the five weeks following the return to work on 29 August.  Thus, the total recovery of the cotton cargo in the “Bremensis” was less than 50%.  The salvage work continued to about 5 October when the north-east rollers set in, though the HMS Flora working party did not return to their ship until 13 October, 1868. A substantial amount of the “Bremensis”’ equipment was also recovered, including all her tanks and anchors, but it was suggested by Mr Hawkins the Boatswain that more could have been removed if more labour had been available.

The “Bremensis” crew and the salvaged cotton are sent to Britain

Some of the crew of the “Bremensis” were returned to the UK on the mail steamer “Saxon” on 31 August, 1868.  On her next round trip in December this vessel also took 72 bales of recovered cotton, arriving at Plymouth on 5 January 1869. When the “Rajasthan” left on 5 September she took an estimated 2084 bales, though the exact figure was uncertain due to some of the load being loose and other bales, about 25, being jettisoned into the ocean.  This was because they were wet, and microbial decay was causing them to overheat creating a fire risk.  The “Rajasthan” also took the remainder of the “Bremensis” crew.  Captain Webster and his first officer Mr Stevenson left on the mail steamer of 1 September.  The steamer “Roman” called at Ascension on 1 October and was loaded with some of the salvaged cotton on Captain Wilmshurst’s instructions and as his property.

News of Captain Wilmshurst’s actions reaches London

But a bombshell was about to explode in London.  In a letter dated 1 September 1868, Mr Matthews, the Lloyds agent at Ascension wrote a concise, factual letter to Lloyds of London, describing the events on the island during August, which was the first notification to the outside world that something rather unusual had been taking place in this insular outpost of Queen Victoria’s dominion.

“Ascension, Sept 1 1868.  Sir, Since we last wrote you about 2000 bales in all of cotton have been saved from the ship “Bremensis” and it is now being reshipped in the “Rajasthan”, a ship which has just been cleared of cargo for the government dockyard at this place; she is nearly ready for sea; she takes a portion of the “Bremensis” crew.  Captain Webster called for a survey on the ship “Bremensis” and the Board of Officers on being informed that Captain Wilmshurst could give no more labour for clearing her condemned her.  She was sold by auction the following day and purchased by Captain Wilmshurst for £20.  The boats were bought by the master of the “Rajasthan” for £5 the only labour here being the ship’s company of HMS Flora and this being no longer available made it useless for any other to offer to purchase.  The ship has not changed her position and the weather has been most favourable for getting out the cargo.  Volunteers from the ship’s company of HMS Flora are now engaged during the official non-working hours in clearing her for their Captain and much has already been saved.  We are Sirs, &c, RT Webb and Co.  The Secretary, Lloyds, London.”

The Admiralty takes action

The Lloyds Salvage Committee, on receiving Mr Matthews’ letter, which was written under his company’s name, Webb & Co, Mr JAW Harper, the secretary to that committee, immediately forwarded it to Mr WG Romaine, Secretary to the Admiralty, realising that it would have to investigate what had been going on at its Ascension station as a matter of urgency.  Harper’s covering letter subtly pointed out, if that were necessary, the explosive nature of the letter from Webb & Co.

“24^th September 1868.  Sir – I am desired by the Committee of this Association to send to you the accompanying copy of a letter from Lloyds Agent at Ascension, Mr Webb.  The Committee cannot of course guarantee the statements made by Mr Webb and are not prepared to make any charge against Captain Wilmshurst.  On the contrary, the statements of Mr Webb appear to them incredible.  I am Sir &c, The Secretary”

The Admiralty did not need further prodding to take action.  They immediately sent out instructions to Commodore Dowell at Ascension that he should hold an inquiry into events surrounding the salvage of the “Bremensis” and, if it should appear to him there was a prima facie case against Captain Wilmshurst, to send him home to be tried by court-martial.  Of course, such instructions still took about two weeks to reach Ascension, even after they had been lodged on a vessel.

Lloyds Salvage Association sends a representative to Ascension

The Lloyds Salvage Association, under pressure from the owners and underwriters of the “Bremensis”, which was insured for £100,000 (another report said £140,000) arranged, with the approval of the Admiralty, to send out a representative to Ascension, duly accredited to both Commodore Dowell and to Captain Wilmshurst.  Captain Grant RN left on the mail steamer for Ascension on 25 September.

Captain Wilmshurst writes to Captain Webster

On 13 September, Captain Wilmshurst wrote a bizarre letter to Thomas Webster, the now departed master of the “Bremensis”, with whom he had had a difficult and tense relationship and who was now free to tell the world about the goings-on at Ascension.  This letter bears a remarkable similarity to the letter that Wilmshurst had written earlier the same year to Mr Matthews, after he had been ejected from his position as island sutler.    

“Sir, If upon your leaving the island of Ascension under your present depressing circumstances it will be of any gratification to you to know, I beg to assure you, you carry away with you my highest respect for your conduct as a gentleman and as far as I am able to judge as an officer too.  Sympathising with your misfortune.  I remain yours faithfully, A Wilmshurst, Captain HMS Flora.  F Webster Esq Commander late ship “Bremensis”.” 

It is difficult to understand Wilmshurst’s motive for writing this letter, which does not seem to have been sincere in the sentiments it expressed, because he had criticised Webster’s seamanship and had ridden roughshod over all his approaches and requests for help.  Was Wilmshurst trying to demonstrate that his own actions had not been motivated by any personal antagonism?

Captain Wilmshurst continues with his strategy

Captain Wilmshurst continued with his strategy of claiming salvage fees for the work done by his men between 12 August and 19 August and disposing of the assets he acquired at auction on 26 August, still apparently oblivious to moves being taken against him in England.  He gave notice to the Board of Trade of a salvage claim for £12,654 and the Board duly informed Lloyds about 25 September, 1868.

Captain Wilmshurst sells some cotton (and is taught a lesson in negotiating)

About 1 October, 1868, Mr Lewis, the Ascension Paymaster was asked by the Acting Governor to meet him at the Victualling Yard.  There he found Captain Wilmshurst and Captain Dixon of the mail steamer “Roman”, with Mr Solomon and Mr Gideon, traders from St Helena, who had apparently been alerted to the cotton for sale on Ascension and had arrived to make a bid.  Wilmshurst, obviously a stranger to commercial negotiations, asked Mr Lewis what Solomon and Gideon should pay for the cotton on offer.  Lewis, probably being equally naive, declined an estimate, so Wilmshurst opened with an offer of 4d per lb.  This was countered with 3 ¼ d per lb, which Wilmshurst rejected.  The St Helena visitors then turned and walked away, and Wilmshurst was then faced with the reality that, without a plurality of potential buyers, the seller is at a distinct disadvantage.  He chased after Solomon and Gideon and tried to accept their previous, rejected offer, but they now reduced that offer to 3d per lb.  Wilmshurst had little choice but to accept, resulting in a sale for a total price of £365 for goods realistically worth about £600.  Pier dues should have been paid on the salvaged cotton but apparently no such dues were levied.  Commodore Dowell was present on the island at this time, but Captain Wilmshurst did not consult with him, or seek his authority before making the sale of cotton to Solomon and Gideon.

(Solomon and Gideon (also known under various other names) was a well-known and dominant trading company on St Helena.  It had been founded by Saul Solomon, the father of Mr Solomon, Solomon senior having arrived at St Helena by accident, when he fell ill on the way home from India.  One of the Gideon brothers regularly played chess with Napoleon Bonapart when he was incarcerated on St Helena between 1815 and his death in 1821. Saul Solomon appears to have been involved in an unsuccessful plot to spring Napoleon from St Helena.  The company still exists on St Helena, though it is now owned by the St Helena Government.)  

Captain Wilmshurst took every opportunity to sell cotton or equipment salvaged from the “Bremensis” to merchant ships calling at Ascension.  This strategy was terminated on the arrival of Captain Grant.  Wilmshurst then handed over all remaining unsold cotton and equipment to him, as though he had been saving the goods for the benefit of the owners.  Interestingly, the money realised from the sale of cotton was used to repay Mr Woods for the cash Wilmshurst had borrowed, and to further pay the volunteer workers in the salvage gang, though apparently all such debts were not settled.  The money was not turned over to Captain Grant, as the unsold goods had been.  Wilmshurst was left a few pounds out of pocket and would later claim that this showed he did not buy the “Bremensis” and her cargo for personal gain.  His loss could just as easily have been a consequence of commercial naiivity.

The British Press takes an interest in the affair

Meanwhile the news from Ascension had started to reach the British newspapers and they took an increasing interest in the story, eventually making sensational claims.  The Shipping and Mercantile Gazette of 26 September 1868 entered with the headline, “Salvage – Extraordinary Proceedings at Ascension”. The Dublin Evening Mail of 8 October gave an account of the Ascension events and admitted that they called into question the behaviour of Captain Wilmshurst, but then, shocked by their own suggestion that an officer in the Royal Navy might have acted in a questionable way, dismissed the idea because he was “an officer and a gentleman”.  The Leeds Times of 10 October was not so restrained.  Its headline was, “How to make a fortune at a stroke. – Salvage extraordinary”.

Captain Webster is interviewed by Lloyds Salvage Association

Captain Thomas Webster and Mr Stevenson, formerly of the “Bremensis”, arrived back in England before 16 October 1868.  They met with Mr JAW Harper, Secretary of the Lloyds Salvage Association, who interviewed them and took statements concerning the recent events at Ascension, following the wrecking of the “Bremensis”.  Harper then sent a precis of these statements to Mr Romaine, Secretary to the Admiralty, on 16 October, making the following points.  1.  Captain Wilmshurst took forcible possession of the “Bremensis” and excluded captain and crew from the vessel, working on the discharge of the cargo with his own men.  2.  Captain Wilmshurst then withdrew his own men from the work but would not allow either the “Bremensis” or the “Rajasthan” crew to replace his men.  3.  After a week Captain Webster asked Captain Wilmshurst to order a survey.  4.  The survey condemned the property because it was breaking up.  5.  The property valued at £40,000 to £50,000 was sold at auction.  6.  There were no buyers at Ascension and the auction realised only £20.  7.  The purchaser was Captain Wilmshurst.  8.  Two days later Captain Wilmshurst’s men were again put to work on the “Bremensis”.  9. When the “Bremensis” crew left Ascension the salvage was being vigorously pursued.

Commodore Dowell returns to Ascension

Commodore Dowell had returned to Ascension in HMS Rattlesnake on 22 September 1868 and about the middle of October he would have received his instructions from the Admiralty.  About the same time Captain Grant, representing Lloyds Salvage Committee also arrived at the island.  Several things happened following Dowell’s return, but the precise timing and sequence is presently unclear.  Firstly, Mr Lewis was investigated by Captain Wilmshurst, on the instructions of Commodore Dowell, on a charge of trading but was exonerated, the charge being found to be “false and malicious”.  (A cynic might suggest that this finding was unsurprising given Wilmshurst’s support for the canteen initiated by Lewis and his subsequent use of Lewis as his mouthpiece, for example in delivering messages to the survey party, and in bidding for the “Bremensis” and her cargo at auction. Wilmshurst and Lewis clearly worked closely together in administering Ascension.)  Secondly, Commodore Dowell held a Court of Inquiry into the conduct of Captain Wilmshurst, as he had been instructed to do by the Admiralty.  He found that there was a case for Wilmshurst to answer before a court-martial.  Wilmshurst was superseded as Captain of HMS Flora and ordered back to Portsmouth, with the status of a prisoner, to face trial.  Thirdly, Captain Grant completed his investigations and returned to England in early December, where he reported his findings to the Lloyds Salvage Committee.  On arrival in London he claimed all the cotton from the “Bremensis” for the underwriters, including that recovered after 29 August.

Press coverage intensifies

During December 1868 and especially after the publication of the charges against Captain Wilmshurst, on which he would be tried at court-martial, press coverage of the case again increased and remained at a high pitch throughout the trial.  For example, on 7 December the London Evening Standard wrote, “Extraordinary proceedings are expected to be disclosed in reference to this affair and some other matters at the island” and the Portsmouth Times and Gazette on 12 December reported, “The government at the island generally has been extraordinary”.  Most press comment was considered but occasionally items took speculation into the realm of fantasy, the Monmouthshire Beacon on 26 December suggesting, “Unpleasant hint that captain of the “Bremensis” might have colluded with governor of the island in selling the “Bremensis” and its cargo for a paltry sum”.

Comments worthy of more serious consideration were contained in a letter from a serving naval officer published in the Hampshire Telegraph on 9 December.  “Sir, Last October I read in your columns a communication from an officer who revelled in the felicity of Captain Wilmshurt’s acquaintance.  I am not so fortunate, but I take I feel sure an equally deep interest in the eccentricities of the gentleman.  Were a subordinate officer to have been guilty of the conduct laid to the charge of Captain Wilmshurst in the public press the very mildest sentence he could expect would be dismissal from Her Majesty’s service.  It will be a curious matter to watch what the rank of post captain will do to shelter this gentleman who has on the most unequivocal testimony deliberately disobeyed the Admiralty regulations and instead of protecting the interests of the Merchant Navy has acted more like a Cornish wrecker than a British officer. …..  I am Sir An officer who considers cotton lifting detrimental to the interests and discipline of Her Majesty’s Service.”  This letter from inside the service, suggesting that a junior officer would have been thrown to the wolves, but a post-captain might be protected by his brother officers, proved to be remarkably prescient.

Captain Wilmshurst is returned to Portsmouth

Captain Wilmshurst left from Ascension on the screw store ship, HMS Megaera early in December, 1868.  The vessel was also carrying old stores, invalids and six witnesses attending Wilmshurst’s court-martial.  She arrived at Spithead, off Portsmouth, on the evening of 19 December but a planned transfer of personnel could not be effected, due to bad weather.  Instead, HMS Megaera sailed into Portsmouth harbour on 21 December and discharged the prisoner and witnesses.  Captain Wilmshurst reported himself to the Commander-in-Chief, Admiral Sir Thomas Sabine Pashley. Then something quite remarkable, even Erewhon-esque, happened.  The witnesses were not permitted to land but were confined as prisoners on HMS Victory, while the prisoner was a guest at the house of Rear-Admiral Chad in Southsea, even being present at “one or two entertainments given at Portsmouth”!  (“Erewhon”is a novel, written by Samuel Butler, about a mythical country where criminals were treated as being sick, while the sick were treated as criminals.)  It will be recalled that Arthur Wilmshurst had served under Henry Dulcie Chad junior on HMS London from 1859 and under his father, Henry Dulcie Chad senior, on HMS Excellent in 1845.

Preparations are made for the court-martial

The arrangements for the court-martial were entirely controlled by the Royal Navy, which would not brook any outside interference in a process which it considered to be exclusively a military matter.  The Navy decided the charges that Wilmshurst would face, the composition of the tribunal and its venue, and the witnesses to be examined.  No input was invited from Captain Grant, himself a Royal Naval officer, or from the Lloyds Salvage Committee though, as will be seen, Mr Harper, Secretary to that committee took a close interest in all matters concerning the court-martial and did not hesitate to communicate his thoughts to the Admiralty.  Harper was highly critical of the process.

On 21 December 1868, Mr Harper wrote to the Admiralty Secretary, Mr Romaine.  “Sir - I am desired by the Committee of this Association to apply to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to be allowed to be represented at the court-martial appointed to try Captain Wilmshurst by counsel on account of the very large sum of money – probably not less than from £30,000 to £40,000 – alleged by the owners of the cargo of the “Bremensis” to have been entirely lost to them by means of those proceedings of Captain Wilmshurst which are to be inquired into at the court-martial.  The Secretary”. The request by Lloyds Salvage Association to be represented by counsel at the forthcoming court-martial was refused.  The one concession offered by the Admiralty to Lloyds Salvage Association was to sanction the attendance of a short-hand writer at the court-martial on behalf of the Association, provided that the transcript was not made public until the trial was over.

Harper was also in communication with the Admiralty on the question of the witnesses to be called at the court-martial.  The Navy had alone taken the decision on witness representation and ordered six men from Ascension home on HMS Megaera, along with Captain Wilmshurst.  Harper’s letter identified three witnesses who had nor been sent home but who could give “more or less important” evidence.  However, he recognised that to request the inclusion of these witnesses would cause a significant delay in the legal proceedings while the men were brought from Ascension, which might give Wilmshurst fair ground for complaint.  Mr Harper therefore refrained from making such a request.

The charges facing Captain Wilmshurst

At the end of December Mr Romaine gave Mr Harper a copy of the charges to be faced by Captain Wilmshurst.  They were as follows.

First Charge.  For that he the said Captain Arthur Wilmshurst being a person subject to the Naval Discipline Act  1866 and Captain of Her Majesty’s ship Flora and having the command and authority of the island of Ascension in the absence of the Commodore commanding on the West Coast of Africa was during such absence of the Commodore guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer in this that the merchant ship “Bremensis” Thomas Webster master laden with a cargo of cotton and other goods and merchandise having been wrecked on the island on or about the 13^th day of August 1868 and a part of the cargo of cotton having been saved by the officers and men under Captain Wilmshurst’s orders he did on or about the 19^th day of August order the work of clearing the wreck to be suspended with intent to compel and oblige the master of the said ship “Bremensis” to apply for a survey on the said ship whereby she and the remainder of her cargo might be sold to the advantage of him the said Captain Wilmshurst that the master of “Bremensis” was in consequence obliged to apply and did apply to Captain Wilmshurst for a survey on the said ship and that the surveying officers reported that the ship and cargo ought to be sold in consequence of Captain Wilmshurst informing them that no labour could be provided for clearing the said wreck and saving the cargo that the said ship and remaining cargo was sold by auction and that at the sale she was improperly purchased by Captain Wilmshurst for the sum of £20 that the work of saving the cargo was afterwards resumed by orders from Captain Wilmshurst and about 600 bales of cotton saved together with many articles of the tackling of the said ship enumerated in a list appended hereto that the purchase by Captain Wilmshurst  was for his own benefit and advantage and that the cargo and other articles and portions of the said wrecked vessel were not saved for the benefit of the owners or underwriters or other persons legally interested as it was Captain Wilmshurst’s duty to have done.

 

Second Charge. For that he the said Captain Arthur Wilmshurst being a person subject to the Naval Discipline Act 1866 and Captain of Her Majesty’s ship Flora  was guilty of an act to the prejudice of good order and naval discipline in having on or about the first day of October 1868 after the wreck of the “Bremensis” and after she was purchased by Captain Wilmshurst and when Commodore Dowell CB the Commodore of the West Africa station and his senior officer was at the anchorage  in the island of Ascension without the knowledge or authority of his said senior officer sold to Messrs Solomon Moss and Gideon  Merchants of St Helena some cotton and other articles saved from the wreck of the “Bremensis” for a sum of about £365  for his own benefit and advantage and not for the benefit of the owners  and underwriters of the said ship  or other parties who might be legally entitled to such proceeds of the ship and cargo as it was his duty to have done.

Criticism of the charges

Thus, the two charges were concerned with rather general naval concepts, the first with “conduct unbecoming an officer” and the second with “good order and naval discipline” and this did not please Mr Harper, who realised that the charges were rather vague.  “I could not help seeing that the form in which the charges were framed was such as might even secure the acquittal of the prisoner and as they went far beyond the intentions of the Committee….” Mr Harper then wrote to Mr Romaine with his criticisms of the charges and his views on what the charges should actually have been, even though he knew he was probably powerless to influence those charges. 

“31^st December 1868.  WG Romaine, Esq, CB, Secretary to the Admiralty.  Sir,- If it is considered how large a stake this Committee, as representing the owners of the cargo of the “Bremensis” have in the trial of Captain Wilmshurst, I think I shall be excused if I point out in what respects it is the Committee do not acquiesce in the charges upon which that trial is at present founded.  The first charge which the Committee, in discharge of a painful duty, would have made against Captain Wilmshurst, is simply that he was guilty of an illegality in taking possession of a wrecked ship when the captain of the ship – the legal representative of all interests in the ship – was present; and the Committee considers that this charge would have been fully supported by evidence.  The first charge upon which he is to be tried appears to be that what he did was done with intent to compel and oblige the master of the ship “Bremensis” to apply for a survey on the said ship whereby she and the remainder of her cargo might be sold.  The Committee are of opinion that so far as the earlier proceedings of Captain Wilmshurst are concerned the facts may not be sufficient to prove the interest charged; they would have confined themselves to the facts leaving the Court to draw its own conclusions how far such facts could be considered consistent with the proper discharge of Captain Wilmshurst’s duties and obligations.  2.  The Committee would have alleged as a breach of duty on the part of Captain Wilmshurst the order given by him to the men of the Flora to render no more assistance towards the salvage of the property and that this suspension of work in perfectly suitable weather in violation of his duty was probably the cause of the total loss of about £30,000 or £40,000.  3.  The Committee would have felt themselves compelled to charge Captain Wilmshurst with influencing the judgement of his subordinate officers who had surveyed the ship and cargo by stating that he would give no more labour , in consequence of which the surveyors who at first reported that the saving of the cargo should be continued were induced to recommend that it should be sold the statement finally made that the ship was breaking up being contradicted by the event the ship holding together for nearly two months afterwards.  4.  With respect to the sale the Committee would have charged against Captain Wilmshurst that it is impossible he could have been discharging his duty in permitting a sale of property of this great amount at a place where there could be no purchasers and where the sum realised would be purely nominal.  5.  That this neglect of duty as an officer was seriously aggravated when he himself became the supposed owner of the property salvage operations were recommenced by the men of his own ship the Flora who saved a very considerable quantity and would probably have saved all but for the setting in of the rollers and in that case Captain Wilmshurst would have realised a very large sum of money.  7.  The Committee would have suggested that a charge should be framed which would give the court-martial an opportunity of strictly investigating all the circumstances connected with this apparent speculation of Captain Wilmshurst.  It may not be unimportant to mention that the £20 purchase money was paid by Captain Wilmshurst in charges made for surveys in connection with the wreck as you will see by the enclosed account the original of which has only just now been placed in my hands.  I should also observe that in the particulars copies of which are enclosed given by Captain Wilmshurst of the nine guineas for survey on the wreck five surveyors are charged for while the survey shows four only were employed and in the case of the seven guineas for survey on the “Rajasthan” four surveyors are charged for when the survey shows that only three were employed.  The Secretary.” 

This was a devastating critique by Mr Harper of the court-martial system in general, and the impending trial of Captain Wilmshurst in particular.  Interestingly, Harper, in his last point, suggested that there were financial discrepancies which deserved investigation.  Apparently, they never did get the attention they deserved.  The views of the Admiralty on Harper’s critique are not known but the Navy hierarchy would surely have been irritated by this intrusion by a civilian into naval procedures.  Harper was ignored and the charges against Wilmshurst remained the same, still shrouded in the traditions of naval discipline and still lacking in the factual precision that would have marked charges being faced in a civilian court.  This was not the limit of the Lloyds Salvage Association’s criticisms of Wilmshurst’s court-martial.  After the process was over they, through Mr Harper laid out in detail what they saw as its deficiencies in the evaluation of the evidence.

The significance of the court-martial of Captain Wilmshurst

The court-martial, which was postponed for a week at the request of the defence, finally started on Monday, 4 January 1869 and concluded on Wednesday, 13 January.  There can be no doubt that the Royal Navy viewed this court-martial as a very serious matter, questioning as it did the behaviour of a senior officer, who should always be beyond reproach.  Failure to uphold this standard would strike at the basis of the compact between the officer corps and the public: that officers in Her Majesty’s armed forces could be absolutely relied upon to act with the best interests of the country uppermost, and to eschew any personal consideration. 

This importance of the trial was signalled by both the venue for the court-martial and the identities of the officers appointed to conduct the process.  It was held on board HMS Victory, then a harbour ship moored at Portsmouth. HMS Victory was Admiral Horatio Nelson’s flagship at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805, when Nelson himself demonstrated abundantly the behaviours to which an officer and a gentleman should aspire.  (It is a not insignificant fact that HMS Victory, though now in dry dock in Portsmouth Historic Dockyard and a museum ship, is still in commission as the flagship of the First Sea Lord and remains the most powerful symbol of British naval tradition.)

The composition of Captain Wilmshurst’s court-martial was also highly significant.  The following people served: Admiral Sir Thomas Sabine Pasley, Bart, Commander in Chief, president; Rear Admiral George Greville Wellesley, CB; Captains Edward B Rich (HMS Asia), George Bowyer (HMS Victory), Thomas Cochrane (HMS Duke of Wellington), the Lord Gilford (HMS Hercules), George AC Brooker (HMS Wyvern) and E Harding (HMS Juno).  Captain George Frederick Blake RMLI barrister-at-law officiated as judge-advocate, Mr William Vernon Harcourt, instructed by Mr Henry Ford of Portsea, acted as the prisoner’s friend, Mr George B Martin paymaster of her Majesty’s yacht Victoria and Albert, assisted by Mr E Hoskins, acted as prosecutor.  Six of the eight brother officers who would sit in judgement of Arthur Wilmshurst were of the same rank, post-captain, the remaining two, Admiral Pasley and Rear-Admiral Wellesley were very senior people in the contemporary naval hierarchy.  Admiral Sir Tomas Sabine Pasley 2^nd Baronet, was Commander-in-Chief, Portsmouth between 1866 and 1869.  He was the grandson of Admiral Sir Thomas Pasley, 1^st Baronet, who lost a leg during the Glorious First of June battle off Ushant, between the French Republicans and the British in 1794.  Sir George Wellesley was Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Squadron and later First Naval Lord.  He was a nephew of the 1^st Duke of Wellington.

Imbalances in the court-martial

There were two fundamental concerns with this set-up.  Firstly, that the brother officers who composed what, in effect, was the jury were hardly disinterested and secondly, the individuals acting as defence counsel and prosecuting counsel (Mr William Vernon Harcourt, QC and Mr George B Martin respectively) were hardly equivalent in legal competence.  George Martin was paymaster on the HMY Victoria and Albert.  Paymasters looked after the books of individual vessels and were of equivalent rank to lieutenant.  Mr Martin would have had no legal training.  Vernon Harcourt, the prisoner’s friend, on the other hand, was a lawyer and politician who was called to the bar in 1854 and became a Queen’s Counsel in 1866.  The role of prisoner’s friend was normally filled by a brother officer, not a QC.  The other legally-qualified attendee, the judge-advocate was solely there to make rulings on (military) law.

Fundamental difference between the prosecution and defence cases

The fundamental difference between the prosecution case, as expressed in the two charges and the defence case was not about what had occurred on Ascension but about the motivation and intent of the prisoner.  The Nautical Magazine and Naval Chronicle encapsulated the essence of the Wilmshurst case.  “Not really a dispute about facts but about the intentions of Captain Wilmshurst.  Not did he act wisely but whether he acted honestly, Not whether he was high-handed but whether his high handedness was for his own benefit, or that of the men working under him.”

Vernon Harcourt QC sums up for the defence

On the final day of the court-martial, Mr Vernon Harcourt QC, the prisoner’s friend, with the agreement of the court, read the concluding summary of the defence.  The significant points made were as follows.  Captain Wilmshurst’s appointment gave him authority to act as he did.  He provided labour from the island to the extent that it could be spared, given the other work of a vital nature which had to be performed.  In any case the limited capabilities of the tug and lighters restricted the number of men who could be used at the wreck.  Withdrawal of labour from the wreck on 19 August was to load the “Rajasthan” with already recovered cotton and was done at the express wish of Captain Webster.  Captain Wilmshurst had done all he could to salvage the cargo of the “Bremensis”.  Condemnation of the ship without the cargo as the survey party had initially proposed was illogical.  The survey was requested by Captain Webster and the sale was a logical consequence of the survey.  Captain Webster’s evidence was unbelievable and uncorroborated, and the court should not question the honour of an officer and a gentleman on such a basis.  Captain Webster did not complain to anyone at Ascension about the process.  He wanted the cotton to be saved and that was done.  He wanted the “Rajasthan” to be loaded and that was done.  He wrote no letter of complain to his owners.  Had there been one it would certainly have appeared at the court-martial.  (In fact, Captain Webster did write a letter of complaint to the owners of the Bremensis, which was not, for some inexplicable reason, presented to the court.)  Since Captain Wilmshurst controlled the only labour available – the crew of the Flora – it was logical for him to buy the wreck.  He did not buy the wreck for personal gain and he never expected to recover anything from the wreck except the anchors.  His promise to apply any profits made to the canteen upset Mr Matthews, the former sutler on the island.  He had never expected to recover any more cotton.  The weather was unexpectedly good.  Commodore Dowell knew what was going on, he sent volunteers from the Rattllesnake and the Vestal and he knew about the sale to Messrs Solomon and Gideon.  This sale was made on behalf of the underwriters.  The notion that he had sold salvaged material for personal gain was false for, while the underwriters had gained from the sale, he and his men had lost money.  The public service was his first responsibility and salvage secondary. 

The Morning Post summarised the final statement.  “The prisoner concluded his defence by saying that after 37 years of honourable service his present position was a painful one, but he placed every confidence in the court.  They would consider the peculiarity of his position; that he had acted to the best of his judgement in a very responsible position.  Had he not acted as he had done the property that was saved would have been lost; and if the course he pursued had been unusual, it was warranted by the surrounding conditions, all of which he knew full well would be viewed by the court with impartial fairness.”  Captain Wilmshurst had every reason to be confident that the verdict of the court would be favourable to him.

Testimonials in support of Captain Wilmshurst’s character

Before withdrawing to deliberate on its verdict, the court heard written testimonials from Admiral Sir WF Martin, Admiral Sir SC Dacres and Admiral Arthur Farquhar, followed by Rear-Admiral Chads and Vice-Admiral Lewis Tobias Jones, both of whom appeared in person to attest to the fine qualities that Captain Wilmshurst possessed.  

Chad: “My acquaintance with you began about 20 years ago when we were in the Excellent and the Naval College.  I afterwards knew you on the coast of Africa, when you were Lieutenant of the Albatross.  In later years you were commander of the London in the Mediterranean for a period of about two years and a quarter.  I always found you a most zealous hard working and painstaking officer.  You were most correct and officer-like in your conduct; very strict and very just.  I had the fullest confidence in you.  I always thought you an upright and honourable man and I have had no cause to change my opinion.  I have seldom if ever met an officer more devoted to the service or more full of zeal for it.” 

Jones: “Captain Wilmshurst served under my command as commander of the Princess Royal in the latter part of the Russian War and came home and was paid off from the ship in the summer of 1856.  I found him an efficient active and zealous officer strictly honourable and in a marked degree remarkably conscientious in all his actions.”

The verdict of the court-martial

The court closed at 4pm and reconvened at 5.45pm on Wednesday 13 February 1869.  There could have been little surprise at the verdict the court reached after hearing the defence case prepared by a QC, an utterly inadequate presentation of the prosecution case, and the public support of so many senior naval officers.  The finding was read out by the Judge-Advocate, “That the charges made against the prisoner were not proved and that the prisoner was honourably acquitted”.  Admiral Sir Thomas Pashley, the president of the court, returned his sword to Captain Wilmshurst (it is a tradition that an officer’s sword is surrendered at the start of a court-martial) and “took occasion to make suitable complimentary remarks to Captain Wilmshurst”.  Wilmshurst was free to resume his career in the Royal Navy, his honour intact, according to his brother officers who served on the Court-martial, or who presented evidence to it.  But that is not entirely how the proceedings and the verdict on HMS Victory were seen by the outside world.

A mixed response by the press on the verdict of the court-martial

The newspapers expressed mixed opinions.  The Scotsman found the proceedings “convoluted and tedious”.  Many newspapers expressed relief at the verdict, not because an innocent man had been traduced so much as that a guilty verdict would have had serious consequences for the Navy’s standing in the eyes of the public.  The Daily Telegraph and Courier: “It would, we repeat, have been a public calamity had one of Her Majesty’s chief officers been publicly branded as guilty of fraud.  The navy is the popular branch of the service and to the nation its spotless honour if possible even more dear than that of the army.  Hence the condemnation of such a man as Captain Wilmshurst would have inexpressibly shocked the whole country.  A blot would have been printed on a fair escutcheon.  Doubts would have been raised respecting the integrity of a class of men in whom the nation has hitherto put complete trust and the mercantile community would have felt that one of the safeguards of our foreign commerce had been touched with a rude hand.”  The Globe even attributed blame to those who had made the charges against Captain Wilmshurst (Mr Matthews, the Lloyds agent at Ascension and Commodore Dowell, who had returned Wilmshurst to England for trial).  “Errors like that into which those who have brought these charges against Captain Wilmshurst have fallen, inflict serious injury and diminish confidence.” 

The Hampshire Telegraph, which would be expected to be circumspect in its criticism of the Navy, given the location of Portsmouth within that county, said the following.  “The gallant and distinguished officers who assembled for the purpose of investigating the grave charges brought against Captain Arthur Wilmshurst of the Flora may be congratulated upon having terminated their tedious and unpleasant labours.  After having sat seven days for the purpose of transacting the practical business of a naval tribunal and having met on two other occasions for the purpose of performing a solemn farce without laughing they have completely and honourably exonerated Captain Wilmshurst from the charges of having by the exercise of his authority as Governor of the island of Ascension unlawfully secured possession of the hull and part of the cargo of the “Bremensis” and of having disposed of the latter for his own benefit and advantage.  It is not to be expected that there will be a complete agreement of opinion amongst those who have read the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence in reply to the charges as to the decision which has been arrived at.  But whether we coincide with, or dissent from, the judgement of the court there can be no question that the defendant has been in some respects singularly fortunate.  He was fortunate in having the case tried before a court the forms of which are so whimsically absurd that while they deny the prosecutor the opportunity of putting the charges before the judges in a consecutive form and then calling evidence in support of his statement, they permit the prisoner or his friend to read a consecutive defence without the prosecutor having a chance of replying.” 

This newspaper went on to say openly what many people must have been thinking concerning Captain Wilmshurst, even those who believed that he was innocent of the charges laid against him.  “It is impossible however to acquit him of want of judgment.  He was governor of the island which had only two civilians.  He had total power but also total responsibility.”

Criticism from Lloyds Salvage Association

The Salvage Association of Lloyds met on 20 January 1869 to consider a report on the loss of the “Bremensis”, prepared by the secretary, Mr Harper.  The Association described this as a “difficult unpleasant and unprecedented case”. They too were unimpressed with the verdict of the court-martial and Mr Harper, in his usual forensic style, pointed out the glaring anomalies in the prosecution case, though Lloyds were not really concerned with whether Wilmshurst had acted honourably.  Their concern was with the rights of the people that they represented, the owners of the ship and the cargo.

One issue of fundamental importance to Lloyds, which was ducked by the court-martial, was the matter of Captain Wilmshurst forcibly seizing the wreck of the “Bremensis” and then excluding her crew from working on her.  It was the strong view of Lloyds that Wilmshurst acted illegally and that Captain Webster was legally entitled to possession.  “Their illegality (Wilmshurst’s actions) does not admit of dispute or question”. But perhaps for the court-martial it did not matter if Wilmshurst had acted illegally, only that he believed he had conformed with the law and had done so with appropriate motives. 

The delay in salvage engendered by Captain Wilmshurst mattered to Lloyds because it was their belief, and that of Captain Webster, that if he and the men of the “Bremensis” had been free to carry out the salvage work and if they had had the cooperation of Captain Wilmshurst, as he was obliged to do under Admiralty regulations, they could have saved much more of the cargo of cotton to the benefit of the owners and underwriters, since there would not have been an hiatus in cotton recovery between 19 August and 29 August.  The relevant Admiralty Regulations, to which Wilmshurst was subject, were as follows: (1) All officers in command of Her Majesty’s ships are to afford every possible aid to vessels in danger or distress or in want of casual assistance.  (2) All officers are to use their best endeavours to save and protect property and stores which may be on board any vessel placed in circumstances of danger or distress and if necessary to remove such to a place of safety. 

While there was a significant element of truth in the claim that more cotton could have been saved, Mr Harper clearly overplayed his hand on the matter of recovering further cotton.  The first bales to be extracted before 19 August were the easy part of the cargo.  As more cotton was extracted, so the task became more difficult due to waterlogging, decay and jamming.  Also, the unit value of the recovered cotton declined as the difficulty of extraction increased.  Delay had certainly made matters worse but was not the whole story.  Half the load was finally abandoned inside the wreck.

The means by which the survey party, nominated by Wilmshurst and containing three of the crew of his vessel HMS Flora, reached their conclusion was also a matter of direct concern to Lloyds Salvage Association.  The initial recommendation by the three HMS Flora crew members was that the vessel should be sold, and the cargo saved.  Without doubt Wilmshurst did not want this outcome and not because such a division would have been illegal, as both Captain Webster and Captain Goodridge had told him.  He then engineered the circumstances in which further salvage would not be possible since he controlled the only labour he would allow to work on the wreck, forcing a change of direction by his own officers, Lieutenants Molloy and Forrest and then blocking them from appending their reasons for concluding as they did.  The most plausible explanation for Wilmshurst’s actions, in spite of the finding of the court-martial was that he needed the survey party to recommend the sale of both ship and cargo so that he could gain control of the items of value remaining in the wreck but that he was, at the same time, trying to cover his tracks by excluding the reason for the change of recommendation by the surveyors that is, his refusal to guarantee labour for further salvage.         

A related matter was Wilmshurst’s justification for switching the HMS Flora work party from recovery of cotton to loading the “Rajasthan” with cotton already recovered, while there were still about 4,000 bales of cotton inside the “Bremensis”.  This left the vessel’s crew members on the beach, kicking their heels.  Yet they were the people who worked the ship, who had loaded her in Bombay and who would have been ideal for salvage work.  It was difficult to see this action as other than an attempt to pressure Captain Webster to give up his vessel, as Wilmshurst had already advised him to do.  Indeed, it is interesting to add up the number of reasons given by either Wilmshurst or by Navy witnesses for this action.  This is the tally of Mr Harper, with a summary in italics inside brackets of his opposing evidence.  1.  The need to divert labour to load the Rajasthan. (There was no urgency.  The charter-party for loading the cotton allowed for 25 days for loading.)  2.  The necessity to carry on the work of the island, which was getting behind. (There was no evidence that this was the case, for example Mr Binns confirmed that he could have been released from his work in the sail loft.  There were no Naval vessels in the roads at the time, there was minimal construction work in progress on the island, there was spare labour in terms of the Marines and the station musicians and the complement of the island was anyway in process of being reduced by 100 personnel.)  3.  It was too dangerous to employ a Navy diver on recovery work on the Bremensis.  (The work was inside the wreck with minimal depth of water and no exposure to the open ocean, there was no prospect of divers breathing the foul air in the ship and Navy divers were, in any case, trained to deal with risk.)  4.  The work of moving the bales was dangerous.  A man was killed while carrying out this work.  (The man killed lost his life as a result of horse-play, when loading the lighters.  The other sailors injured suffered trivial wounds.)  5.  The ship was in immediate danger of breaking up.  (There was no evidence for this.  The ship held together, and salvage continued until 3 October.)  6.  The north-east rollers were expected daily. (Observations on the island in previous years showed that the north-east rollers were not expected until the beginning of November, though in this year, 1868, they arrived early, about mid-October.)  With this plethora of reasons and the objections to each of them, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the instruction to halt work represented a decision looking for a justification and that cessation of work was of some other significance than any, or all, of the proffered reasons. 

Major anomalies were detailed in Wilmshurst’s account of his reasons for buying the “Bremensis” wreck and her cargo and this facet of the case was illustrated by the evidence of others.  On the day of the sale, 26 August 1868, Captain Wilmshurst told Mr Woods and Mr Lewis that he intended to buy the wreck for the Government but later the same day he had changed his mind and said he would buy the wreck for himself, but he needed one of them to bid for him.  A pier log was kept by Mr Molloy which was signed off each Saturday, sometimes after Wilmshurst had made revisions to its contents, which recorded all matters of a public nature.  Many matters relating to the “Bremensis” were recorded in this log up to the date of sale but subsequently, mention of “Bremensis” affairs ceased.  This change clearly signalled a transfer of “Bremensis” from being a public to a private matter.  The same change occurred in the island log, which also enjoyed the oversight of Captain Wilmshurst.  Further support for the notion that “Bremensis”, ship and remaining cargo, became Wilmshurst’s property on 26 August was the statement by Mr Hawkins, the Boatswain of HMS Flora, that he considered he was working for the owners and underwriters before the sale but for Captain Wilmshurst afterwards.  The introduction of pay and the volunteer nature of the working party operating outside Government hours after 26 August confirmed Captain Wilmshurst’s new status as owner of the wreck.  Wilmshurst then started to act like the owner of the property, selling, or offering for sale, various items, eg. cotton to the traders from St Helena, boats and anchors to the Captain of the Rajasthan.  A salvage claim was made for recovery operations before 26 August but none after that date.  Had Wilmshurst been securing the ship and cargo for the benefit of the owners and underwriters by purchasing it, he would have been able to claim salvage for goods recovered after 19 August too.

What was truly amazing about Captain Wilmshurst was that he seemed incapable of envisaging that his actions, whatever his true intentions, could be credibly interpreted as those of a modern-day wrecker and that the information surrounding these events would not be confined to Ascension for long but would leak out, especially back to the UK.  Did he ever pause to consider how he would explain his actions to Commodore Dowell, when he returned to Ascension, let alone to his superior officers in Portsmouth, or to the Admiralty?  It is an inevitable conclusion that Captain Wilmshurst at least lacked foresight, or alternatively that he had an ulterior motive.  Surely, in order to maintain the confidence of his superiors in his honour and integrity, he needed to share knowledge of his actions and his justification of them with those in authority above him?  He did speak eventually to Commodore Dowell after his return on 22 September, but the Commodore was unconvinced that Wilmshurst’s actions were justified and said that in his opinion the sale would not hold good and Wilmshurst must render him a strict account of everything he salved.  In spite of Commodore Dowell’s advice, Wilmshurst still went ahead with the sale of cotton to the St Helena traders and tried to organise other sales of goods from the “Bremensis”, contradicting the claim made by his “friend” in the closing speech for the defence at his court-martial.  

When Captain Grant, representing Lloyds Salvage Association, arrived on the island, HMS Flora’s captain graciously gave up all remaining unsold goods from the “Bremensis” to the Lloyds representative, for the benefit of the owners and underwriters, as though he had all along been intending this to happen.  When interviewed by Grant, Wilmshurst repeated claimed “that he had done everything for the benefit of the underwriters” and he offered to make this statement under oath.   This hardly squares with his previous statement that any profits would be passed to the island canteen.  Wilmshurst was president of the canteen management committee, but there was no mention in its minutes, either of Captain Wilmshurst’s intentions, or the reality of a cash entry, despite the fact that the canteen was financially stretched at the time.   This omission also throws doubt on Wilmshurst’s true intentions regarding to the proceeds of sales.  It is possible that he was at least mulling the thought of retaining the money for his personal use but was then caught out by evolving circumstances.

It is an inevitable conclusion that the court-martial of Captain Wilmshurst, as a process for finding the truth of what happened on the Island of Ascension in the summer of 1868, was utterly inadequate.  He faced the wrong charges, the witness list was incomplete, relevant evidence was omitted, the prosecution was incompetent and the body sitting in judgement was hardly disinterested or its members free to act independently.  In the circumstances it should not be surprising if the version of events regarding Captain Wilmshurst’s motives and intentions, which exonerated him of the charges he faced, was accepted.  Any alternative verdict would have exposed glaring cracks in an edifice, the concept of the officer and gentleman whose integrity was near absolute and almost above question, which the senior members of the Senior Service were very keen to protect.  However, the overwhelming evidence suggests that Wilmshurst was motivated by personal gain and that he manipulated events to serve his personal agenda, claiming salvage money up to 19 August, 1868 and gaining cheap ownership of goods after 26 August, which he then intended to sell for his own benefit.

Civil action concerning the “Bremensis”

Of course, the trial of Captain Wilmshurst was not directly relevant to any civil action arising from the wrecking of the “Bremensis”.  According to a report in the Portsmouth Times and Naval Gazette the Lloyds Salvage Association was due to take action against Captain Wilmshurst starting on 25 July 1879.  The salvage suit proceeded in the Admiralty Court in Calcutta, presumably because the “Bremensis” started her journey in India.  The findings of the court have not been discovered.  It was not until May 1870 that the Admiralty made an announcement about the impending distribution of salvage money awarded for the salvage work by Navy personnel relating to the “Bremensis”, between 11 August and 19 August, 1868.  The money was finally distributed in July 1869.  Qualifying personnel were divided into nine classes, the highest (“Captain”, ie Wilmshurst) receiving almost £177 (almost £18,500 in 2017 money) and the ninth class (probably the Kroomen) £1 12s 9d, little more than 1/100^th of Wilmshurst’s haul.  In the end, Wilmshurst did profit considerably from his actions.  Wilmshurst’s salvage claim was for £12,654 (over £1,300,000 in 2017 money) which Lloyds found excessive, but it has not been discovered what was the actual sum awarded by the court.

Captain Thomas Webster dies at sea

Thomas Webster returned to sea after the loss of the “Bremensis” and appears to have lived between 1874 and 1876 in New Zealand, before returning to England where he and his wife, Mary, lived at Hackney Downs, London.  He met a mysterious end when his vessel, the “Whittington”, disappeared without trace on a journey from Philadelphia to Queenstown.  She left the American port on 12 December 1879 but failed to arrive in Ireland.  She was presumed lost with all hands somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean and Mrs Webster was granted probate on the presumption that her husband had died at sea.  He left a personal estate of under £400 (under £45,600 in 2017 money).

Captain Wilmshurst continues his Navy career

From the plaudits he received from the president of the court-martial, it appeared that Captain Wilmshurst was free to resume his career as a naval officer.  However, he was initially retained in England on full pay until the civil proceedings relating to the “Bremensis” had been completed.  From 2 March 1869 to 2 July of the same year Wilmshurst was appointed to HMS Duke of Wellington.  At the time this ageing first-rate was acting as flagship to the Port Admiral at Portsmouth, in place of HMS Victory, which became her tender.  HMS Queen Victoria’s most significant function was to fire salutes to passing dignitaries, such as the Queen travelling to and from Osborne House on the Isle of Wight.  In effect Wilmshurst had been parked while the civil action proceeded, and the Navy could decide what to do with him.

There was no possibility of a return to Ascension and his previous role as Captain of HMS Flora.  Command of that vessel was in future to be entrusted to a commander, one rank down from captain.  Wilmshurst was then retired on half pay while he waited for the Navy to dispose of him.  In August 1869 the Portsmouth Times and Naval Gazette reported that Rear-Admiral Chads was to be appointed Commander of the Pacific Squadron, which consisted of ten vessels and that Captain Wilmshurst was to be his flag captain (captain of the admiral’s flagship).  This would have been a plum appointment for Wilmshurst and a signal that he had been fully reinstated in the Navy and would be associated again with his august supporter.  Unfortunately for Wilmshurst, this report proved to be premature.  He had to wait for the following May (1870) for an appointment to be confirmed and it was to command HMS Valliant, a 24-gun armoured frigate which was stationed in the River Shannon, Ireland.  Had someone intervened to divert Captain Wilmshurst from an attractive appointment on the other side of the globe to one in a local backwater?  He spent the remainder of his Navy service chugging around the Irish coast and across the southern Irish Sea to Plymouth and other south western ports, retiring in 1872, at the age of 55, on a pension of £600 per year (almost £65,000 in 2017 money).

Captain Wilmshurst marries

Remarkably, Arthur Wilmshurst had remained unmarried throughout his naval career but in retirement he quickly changed his status, marrying Sophia Fisher at Bembridge on the Isle of Wight on 1 February, 1872.  His wife was 19 years his junior but there were no children.  In 1877 Wilmshurst was created a Companion of the Order of the Bath, 3^rd Class, Military Division, and by 1891 he was promoted to the rank of Vice-Admiral, even though he had been retired since 1872.  He did not survive long to bask in his elevated status.  Arthur Wilmshurst died while on holiday at the Belvidere Hotel, Douglas, on the Isle of Man in 1891.  He was buried at Onchan on that island.

Conclusion

Thus, Arthur Wilmshurst came and went, a naval officer who was largely anonymous, with the exception of a summer of ill-judged actions on the remote island of Ascension in 1868.  Sadly, for him, he will be remembered as a naval officer who at the least blundered, but who was probably also guilty of breaking the sacred covenant between the officer class and the public by his actions.  A naval officer who was shielded from opprobrium by his brother officers and then shunted into a career backwater.  Such is life.

Don Fox

20180213
donaldpfox@gmail.com