(iv)
establishment"(Goddard text1 last page) Why was that need 'desperate'? Capt Hewitt is quoted as saying that the loss of the ship was actually a step forward. Was this his own thoughts on the matter? - Or something he'd heard at Committee?
The ship was the property of the Admiralty - why was she not insured? Had she never been insured? How would the Admiralty have seen it had an Insurance Assessor decided that going for a new record by attempting to tow an unprecedented deep hulk through the rock-bound shallow channels of the Swellies against the rigours of an equinoctial spring tide on the one day of the year when it was only thought possible constituded an unacceptable risk? Or if the pilots had decided they wanted nothing to do with it? Is this why pilots' opinion was never invited? Why was Capt Hewitt not left with Capt Goddard's tidal data? Why was he excluded from what he might have learned from the planning of the inbound tow?
The in-house Investigating Sub-Committe Report has been termed a 'whitewash'.(see Pari-Huws p_13) In paying lip service to the navigation it did manage to avoid these more embarrassing issues. There would have been a much better storey to tell had the matter gone to an Admiralty Court, for it's in the foregoing unanswered questions that the real cause of the loss is to be found. The Investigating Sub-Committee performed its intended purpose admirably by quietly drawing what to the wider world would appear to be an authoritative line under the tragedy. The ship was gone, but there was a lot more to lose than just the ship. The future reputation of an internationally respected establishment was at stake and public exposure had to be avoided. There was nothing to be gained but everything to be lost by embarking on a head-hunt, and it was best for all concerned that the real truth of the matter was never allowed to leak out.
6/. The Aftermath : But there was also a lot more to lose than just a reputation. There was the enormous cost of disposal of the wreck.(Loss 15b) Although the MMSA (Conway's managers) had assured Caernarvon that they accepted full responsibility for the movement of the ship(Loss 15a), having destroyed their ship the MMSA simply walked away from it and handed it back to the Admiralty in the belief that the Admiralty, as the owners, would be obliged to dispose of the remains of their property. But the Admiralty was "unable to accept resposibility for the consequences of the actions of others outside its control" and felt they had "no legal, or even moral responsibility" regarding the wreck, so the Admiralty abandoned it too. Meanwhile the wreck continued to threaten the approaches to Caernarvon to whom its removal was vital, (Loss 15c) but for over three years this penniless little port could find no financial support to deal with it.
When seen from this litigation concious age, the really surprising thing about this interlude was that Caernarvon didn't sue the MMSA for the damage they had done to the approaches to its port. It would not have been an easy case to prove. Given favourable weather the outward transit was not impossible. It was only a matter of opinion whether re-siting the ship at Plas Newydd so stretched the limits of navigational credibility that it could be seen to be 'an unrealistic impractical adventure doomed to failure from its very conception' ("the North Wales seafaring fraternity......" etc.), thereby establishing culpability. The MMSA had been careful to include the Caernarvon Habourmaster in planning the outward tow, so Caernarvon could be seen to be party to what happened. Captain Hewitt had also been careful not to deviate from Committee's 'timetable', thereby evading personal resposibility for acting on his own discretion. (Which would have held no weight in an Admiralty Court, but for which he could not be criticised by his principals). But in so doing the Achilles Heel emerged that Captain Hewitt had gone against Pilot's advice. As the Master, not only was this his prerogative, it was indeed his duty whenever he saw that to be in the interests of his ship. However, any Master who goes against Pilot's advice and then goes on to lose his ship finds himself in a situation impossibly difficult to defend.
But the MMSA was unusually fortunate that following its stranding the Admiralty renounced further interest in the ship, so there was no Admiralty Inquirey. Had the matter gone to an Admiralty Court and the full facts been exposed; if Captain Hewitt's head was to roll then so would many others with it, and the findings of that Court would have pointed very decisively to whose was the responsibility for disposal of the wreck, and it's hard to believe that Caernarvon, as the injured party, would have been in any way involved. But following the loss the MMSA vanished into obscurity and assumed a distinctly low profile. "After all it was central to their essential interests that many questions should remain unanswered"[34], providing an even better very good reason why the real truth of the matter was never allowed to leak out.
Capt. David G Williams (49-51)
21 years a First Class Pilot (Home & Overseas). Licenced for and fully experienced with all classes of ship up to and including 100,000 tons.