Dear JIm
Sorry, but I have to take issue with some of your points.
“He has been condemned on evidence started by a third hand story which was embellished and added to by the press”
Hardly that — the words that condemned Lord were those he gave at the two inquiries, particularly that of Lord Mersey ( see pages 57 to 65 of Paul’s book ) which alone would be given weight in arriving at a decision. The press play no part in that.
And let’s not forget who it was called a press conference on his ship the minute it put into Boston on April 18th . If the press took an interest in Captain Lord, it’s because Lord invited them to do so.
“he was branded guilty before he even appeared in front of his judges”
One of the many, many things I learned from Paul’s book that I had not been cognizant of before was that there was actually a case mounted for the defence of Captain Lord and the men of
the Californian by Dunlop — it runs from pages 124 to 144 and I find it fascinating that so much of what became the “ Lordite” case over the years was first presented at the Inquiry - and found wanting. I suspect because it failed to convince then it doesn’t get much mentioned now — but it must be noted that Dunlop, as every professional lawyer should, does his very best for his client to present a case for their actions. Or in this case, inaction.
What is important is that far from being branded guilty and not given a chance to refute such a verdict I would suggest that in the best traditions of British Justice, when it functions properly, over a period of several hours someone was allowed to speak and defend Lord et al in a court of law. That is not the actions of a kangaroo court. What instead happened is that a case for the defense was presented, considered and rejected. Such is the due process of law.
“he was judged by ambitious politicians and pompous, narrow minded officials”
What ambitious politicians stood in judgement of Stanley Lord ? None that I can think of.
The day after Mersey delivered his judgment the Board of Trade considered taking proceedings against him, but ultimately decided not to ( p 151 ) for a variety of reasons. One would think that ambitious politicians or pompous, narrow-minded idiots would have respectively wanted or been required by regulation to have taken action — but if anything a strong degree of discretion was shown. No politicians railed against him in the press, no-one called for his prosecution and even the man who had him removed from his next command with the Leyland Line, Sir Miles Walker Mattinson, did it within the privacy of the board-room and didn’t go outside to spill his guts to the newspapers.
“Exploited by headline grabbers and has been pilloried by amateurs ever since”
The headlines have been exploited on both sides of the argument, to be fair. Look at the lead up to the de Coverley report when “Lordites” proclaimed the imminent vindication of their man. Didn’t happen. Did they accept the findings ? Did they bunnies…
Indeed given that we first find Lord communicating his story to the outside world through the medium of the Boston newspapers when Californian comes in on April 18th 1912 Lord wasn’t slow to exploit himself — just read the self-aggrandising fluffery he comes out with, all those hints of “state secrets “ and the like. Similarly all those years later when he first goes to Leslie Harrison to tell his story it’s because of the interest generated in him by the film A Night to Remember and subsequent newspaper stories. Let’s not forget the extent to which Harrison attempts to rally the newspapers on behalf of his friend even after that friend has passed away. Or all those alternative suggestions for “
the ship that stood still !” that have been advanced over the years amidst blizzards of publicity. You don’t see the “ Anti-Lordites “ running to the Murdoch press with the startling news that Californian saw rockets every few years, do you ? But we’ve had the Samson, the Mount Temple, “a mysterious foreign vessel with a badge on her funnel” and the entire Newfoundland fishing fleet illegally hunting for whatever put forward — and demolished as suspects. Maybe if they left well enough alone the poor man wouldn’t be such a victim of public attention ?
No, Captain Lord can’t be portrayed as a victim of the press when he was eager to bring it in when it suited him. Truly, here is a man who was hoist by his own petard. Pity he keeps getting hauled back up every so often.
“ He had the bad luck to be saddles with a dithering apprentice. An incompetent 3/O and a 2/O who did not know how to obey or interpret orders.”
Well, whose fault was that ? He was captain — if his crew was dysfunctional then it was for him to do something about it, surely ? Not least find out what’s going on when his supposedly “ dithering …incompetent…” officers shout down the voice tube about seeing rockets in the night, I’d suggest.
“Passenger ship captains - particularly those of the White Star later Cunard etc were regarded as absolute marine snobs for most of the last century.”
Well, Lord was captain of a ship licensed to carry passengers, y’know…
“ Why for instance were these captains showered with honours, knighthoods etc? It was the marine version of the British Class system.”
Er…because they were professional men who had usually started from the bottom and worked their way up in their professions ? If anything, it was a recognition of merit rather than a reinforcement of the class system. Forgive me, but I cannot think of many of the sons of landed aristocracy commanding passenger ships, can you ? Warships, yes —first son takes over the family business, second son into the clergy and third ( and stupidest ) into the forces. But going into trade ? It’s not done, old man…
E J Smith’s parents were shop-owners, Rostron worked up from apprentice on barques as did Lord,
Lightoller’s mother died in child birth and his father did a bunk, and Murdoch’s paternal side were all mariners to choose but five of our major players. For an ambitious but poor lad the sea offered an alternative to the mines or the mills at this time, and for the meritorious a means to advance. If they were ultimately knighted and showered with honours it was because they worked damn hard to get it.
"This was very obvious during the BOT enquiry"
Where ? I see no evidence of any class prejudice showing through at the Inquiry in regards to the handling of ships. Oh to be sure the various passengers might have been lightly handled and there are the stories of Astor and his manservant retiring to dress properly so they might die like gentlemen and the like but they were the construct of the press rather than the Inquiry ( here I would refer you to S Biel’s fascinating study Down With The Old Canoe for the way legends and myths were used to enhance social mores in the press and popular writings ). Given the way the likes of Ismay and the Duff-Coopers were whispered about afterwards I see nothing that indicates that class status preservation was in any way a concern of Mersey et al. Do you ?
I can understand your sympathy for a fellow mariner who appears to you to be a victim of an unfair process that left him skewered in the path of the world press. The problem is, I don't think that is what happened.
Lord erred. He erred in not reacting to reports of rockets, he erred in thinking he could use the press to make himself out to be important in April 1912 and not expect it to look any further into his story, he erred in believing he would not be closely examined in court, and he erred in 1959 when he thought sufficient time had passed for memories to dim, witnesses to have passed away, and to allow him to rpesent himself as a put upon victim.
Alas for him, history doesn't work like that
best wishes
Dave Moran
