Conclusions
Through the darkness, Peirce could make out an unbroken line of cliffs. Though, he cannot have known the exact position, Halsewell was close to a point on the Purbeck coast midway between Winspit and Seacombe. At either end of the stretch, the land falls away to allow small streams to empty into the sea.
Disaster Analysis
HCS Ganges Journey 2 January to 8 January 1786
The Halsewell Escort ship, HCS Ganges would have encountered the same weather and sea state, how did she cope. Captain James Williamson’s logbook has been preserved 33 and states at that 8 am on the 1 January 1786 he set sail from the mouth of the Thames and at noon on 2 January was located at six or seven leagues 18 or 21 miles of Dunnose Point, near Ventnor, on the southern side of the Isle of Wight, with the Halsewell in view.
On the 3 January, Captain James Williamson wrote
… “Hard Squalls with a great deal of snow, and later that day “Several Sail in Sight”, but no mention of the Halsewell. The following morning there were “Hard Gales with Heavy Squalls, rain and hail. At 5 pm on the 5 January, Berry Head was in sight. At 8 pm he wrote “Bore away for St Helens on the east coast of the Isle of Wight because the crew were falling sick. The ship made Portland the wind shifting and was forced to Tack, fresh gales with squalls, rain and a heavy sea. Impossible to clear Portland or the Start Point on either Tack…
HCS Ganges did manage to avoid Portland Bill, because on the 8 January Captain Williamson recorded that he was “abreast of Dunnose “near Ventnor 33.
Both ships experienced the same sea conditions, with both being blown back up the Channel and structurally damaged. HMS Ganges was nearly destroyed by the south wind blowing the ship towards Portland Bill and it almost failed to round the Bill.
Captain’s Attempt to Beach Ship
On the 5th January 1786 at 11 pm the sky cleared and they were able to see St Aldhelm’s Head, two miles south of Worth Matravers, Swanage, at a distance of half a league or one and a half miles. This implies that it wasn’t snowing then and there was moonlight. It may be suggested, with the aid of a telescope, that they were able to see the incoming tide splash over Seacombe ledge and the small headland, this ledge runs south and clear of the water except for spring tides and is approximately 10 metres from the land it also has an entrance to the land at the bottom Seacombe Valley; as shown in the image. Did Captain Peirce attempt to beach Halsewell on this ledge?
More support for this proposal can be found in the book “The Unfortunate Captain Peirce”31. this extract describing Peirce’s perception prior to the ship foundering:
…Through the darkness, Peirce could make out an unbroken line of cliffs. Though, he cannot have known the exact position, Halsewell was close to a point on the Purbeck coast midway between Winspit and Seacombe. At either end of the stretch, the land falls away to allow small streams to empty into the sea. Anyone coming ashore at either extremity would have the best chance of gaining dry land and escaping31.
If this proposal was correct, his desire was quelled by the rebellious crew, but what caused this behaviour.
A probable explanation appeared a few days later in the London Recorder & Sunday Gazette, where it stated that the loss of Halsewell was due to the following:
…is attributed, in a great measure to the want of subordination in the crew, as while there was a probability of saving the ship, the seaman absolutely refused to obey the officers, and on being threatened with chastisements, exultingly answered in the following laconic indolent manner – “You be d-n’d: If you dare, d-n my eyes, but I’ll Loughborough you.” – alluding, as is supposed, to a late verdict in the Court of Common Pleas.
The reference to a lawyer, Lord Loughborough who had presided over the aforementioned court.
… where he afforded relief to a body of seafaring men who, in the course of long voyages to the East Indies, America and the coast of Africa, were not unfrequently exposed to cruelty and injustice on the part of their officers, while they were not always able to contend, on their return, with the real or supposed offenders by means of an expensive law suit 50.
…The damages awarded tended not a little to check brutal usage on the part of commanders and inferior officers … 50.
If they later complained, it was the knowledge that the law would protect them. But surly here, the context was quite different.
Burial Site
There were four rows of graves created at the bottom of Seacombe Valley. To commemorate them a cross and a cannon recovered from the ship was placed on to the grave. These items disappeared over time but in 1856 it was stated that on the little patch of flat ground where the cliffs divide, near a stream that descends to the sea, there were traces of four long graves38.
The number of bodies is an approximate number, because of the rough sea and a lot of the bodies were taken by the storm. There is only a record of survivors and the 20 bodies collected at Westcliff Christchurch.
Seacombe Ledge Entry Path (a stream has created the Cutting).
From the list of Officers, Seaman and Soldiers saved:
Officers and Seaman 33 and Soldiers 25 28, therefore, considering the total saved was 74 the number of Lascars saved were 14 out of an original approximate number of 73
There is some controversy over the location of the burial site. Complaints were made after the catastrophe; relatives were annoyed that their deceased had not been buried in hallowed ground. This might suggest that some of the bodies may have been exhumed at a later date to a more suitable, possibly hallowed location, at the top of the hill, west of the original burial site, called East Man.
To support this suggestion, the burial service would have been supervised by the Reverend Morgan Jones the Worth Matravers vicar. It might be suggested, that he had the foresight to divide the bodies between the four graves. A probable solution would be to place the bodies in order of social rank and religion.
For instance, Non-Christian Lascars in grave one, seaman and soldiers in grave two, officers in grave three and female passengers and other females in the last grave. This would have made the body location far easier for the relatives who wished to exhume their departed relative and move he/she to hallowed land.
The process of burial of the drowned near the wreck site was a standard practise in the 18th century. This procedure had practical reasons, the deceased would have been a public health issue, there were no local mortuaries and the exposed bodies were likely to be attacked by foxes, birds of prey and vagrants who would steal the deceased clothing.
Therefore, the original grave was a form of protection for the deceased and if the relatives had sufficient funds, they could have the body removed to hallowed land.
Later in January 1786, Christchurch Priory provides good example of the procedure deployed, the more prosperous relatives of passenger Elizabeth Blackburn, Charles Schultz , Mary Peirce, the captain’s daughter and Charles Webber a trainee Midshipman, who were four out of the 14 bodies recovered at West Cliff beach, Christchurch, are buried in hallowed ground with a tomb stone. The remaining 10 bodies were buried in a Pauper Grave, at the expense of the Christchurch Lord of the Manor G.I. Taps47.
Most of the Halsewell’s drowned were lowly paid, £2.50 per month and the seaman would not have been paid anything before the cargo was delivered to India28. The seaman’s or soldier’s family would not have the funds for a proper Christian burial.
Possibly, if they were not drowned they would have normally ended their days in a Paupers Grave, similar to the Seacombe site.