On a dark December night off the coast of Dunmore East, the pilot boat Gannet spotted an incoming steamer and sailed on a line upriver to intercept. The action would lead to the loss of the pilot boat and an unholy row in Waterford that would see the court of public opinion brought to the fore. But that was still to come, our story starts on that winter night.
Pilot boat Gannet was built at Whites shipyard in 1856. She was 40 ton 58ft cx16ftx 9 feet on what are now the city’s North Quays. A predecessor, the Falcon, had been deemed unfit by the board. The Gannet however had served faithfully alongside another vessel, the Seagull.
At 5.30 pm on December 3rd, 1863 the Gannet was on duty off the coast of Dunmore East, sailing around in anticipation of inbound ships requiring a pilot. Captained by a Pilot Master, and when with a full compliment, 6 pilots aboard, she would respond to a raised flag in daylight or show a light in darkness from ships requiring pilotage.
As the Gannet proceeded upriver towards Creaden Head, lights were exchanged with the ship, which later claimed in showed no signal for a pilot. The ship was the SS Beta (built 1861; 747 gross tons, 220ftx30x17) of the Malcomson lines Waterford Steamship Company (WSCo). The Beta was on a regular run between the port and London ( several reports state that she was calling to Waterford having sailed from Belfast for London). The Captain had a Board of Trade Masters certificate for Waterford, exempting him from taking on a pilot, the regularity of sailing, and his experience having been determined that he was exempt. In a later newspaper report that year Captain Upton was named as Master, but no Captain was named on the night of the incident in the reports I have found.
From later newspaper accounts, the Gannet hove-to above Creaden Head and three pilots got into the small boat that was used to board the pilots. As they did so, they noticed the Beta change direction to pass astern to the pilot boat, and at this point, the Gannet came about to again intercept. With no time to change course, the Beta rammed the hull of the pilot boat. [I]
The cutter was struck on the port side, abaft the mast, and sank immediately. The Pilot master with three pilots – Glody, Diggins, and Delaney managed to get aboard the steamer. Their three colleagues, Butler, Power, and Ryan, were towed in the small punt to Passage East. [ii]
At the next meeting of the Board a discussion into the loss of the Pilot Cutter and whether to lease another. There was a lot of upset as the master of the Beta had been quoted as telling the Pilot cutter captain that “He knew damn well he didn’t need a pilot”. Members wondered if maybe ships should be required to signal a specific light that a pilot was not required! A unanimous decision was taken to write to the Board of Trade to request an inquiry.[iii]
At the last Harbour Board meeting in December, a letter was read from the Committee of Privy Council for Trade in a response to a request from the commissioners asking for an inquiry into the case of the collision. The response was not what the Board had hoped for, but they were of the opinion that since this was a case of a collision it was not of a character in which they usually interfered and therefore they declined to get involved. However, after a discussion, it was decided that as the “Merchant Shipping Act stated that when a steamer met a sailing vessel it should keep out of her way and in this case the Beta did not, that the Board would request that the Board of Trade revisit their decision” [iv]
Given the earlier description of what had occurred…it’s difficult to understand how the Harbour Board came up with that decision. But ask they did and refused again they were; receiving what was described as “a very definite and negative response from the Board of Trade”. Somewhere amidst all this toing and froing one William Malcomson (WSCo & member of the Harbour Board) let it be known that he was happy to enter into arbitration to try to resolve the matter to the satisfaction of both parties. This was agreed to after a prolonged and rather fractious debate that went on long into the night.[v]
However, at some point in the following weeks, it seems that the Harbour Board took a decision to revisit this decision and made a request that the arbitration be overseen by Queens Advocate from Dublin. This was interpreted by some as kicking the arbitration into a legal sphere. And it provoked an unholy row.
Part of the problem seems connected to a letter written by the Steamship Company to the Harbour Board, that was overlooked at the monthly Board meeting. However, the letter found its way into the papers, and not just in Waterford. The response was explosive. The court of public opinion cared little for the navigation laws of shipping. The Malcomson family was then a huge employer in Waterford, and with an internationally good name in business and shipping circles. A very long and detailed analysis of the matter was contained in the Waterford Mail, which excoriated the Board, pointed out Malcomson’s support for Waterford, the Board, and notable charitable good works, and questioned the very purpose of the Board. The actions of the board were considered petty and unjust. Malcomson’s position was that this was an expensive way to do business. His position was that both sides should enter the arbitration in good faith and see if an agreement could be reached. If there were points that were disputed, then these could be judged by the Advocate. A much cheaper solution he believed.[vi]
At the Board meeting of March, Alderman Denny took the floor of what I can only assume was a very unsettled assembly. He addressed the controversy and acknowledged the public disquiet in the city and how the matter had been handled. He went on to extol the virtues of William Malcomson and the Waterford Steamship Company and also to discuss the current action believing it would have been better: “to have asked for reasonable compensation for the loss of the Gannet. The original cost of that boat was £1,150, and she was 7 years at sea, exposed to very trying and severe weather all seasons so that it is not too much to say that she lost 5% of her original value (PA obviously though not mentioned in the report) thus leaving her value at £757 or thereabouts. If we make up our minds that the crew the Gannet was in no way to blame in the matter, then we are entitled to about £750, and more in fairness. If, on the other hand, it can be shown that the Gannet was wrong and that the fault did not lie with the Beta, are not entitled to a single farthing.”[vii]
Councillor Walsh rebutted this pointing out that it was right and proper that the Harbour Board take legal proceedings against Malcomson and WSCo. At issue he felt was the livelihoods and property of the 7 pilots who were aboard the Gannet that night, and who were out of work since.[viii]
After much acrimony, a proposal was put forward from Mr Jacob saying that legal proceedings should be halted and that a request for a settlement of £600 be put to the WSCo. This was seconded and eventually agreed to. In what must have seemed like a very melodramatic twist, at this point, Mr. Jacob held up a letter from the WSCo stating that they would be happy to settle the matter for £600. Game set and match to Mr. Malcomson it would appear.[ix]
Members of the Harbour Board were insistent that an inquiry was required into the actions of the Pilot Master that night in the harbour. Questions were raised about his fitness to operate, and the judgment of all the pilots on the night. However, there were also pragmatic concerns. What if the Board found that the pilots were in error? Would the £600 be forfeit, would they come out the worse. It seems that a subcommittee was formed to look into the matter, but I could find no report in the papers of the time as to any findings.[x] I’d imagine that the vast majority of people had already heard too much about the incident.
But what of the Gannet? Whatever the acrimony within the offices of the Harbour Board, the matter still existed of a sunken vessel and one less pilot boat to meet the needs of the port. A wreck buoy was stationed directly over the vessel and a notice contained in papers as early as the day after the event. Subsequently, the wreck was raised, as it was an impediment to shipping. My guess is that the damage was so bad, the pilot boat was dragged closer to the Wexford shore and dropped to the bottom. Walter Foley told me previously that the salmon driftnet fishermen had a foul mark off Broomhill called the Pilot Boat. It’s the only one that I am aware of that fits the bill.
Interestingly, the Gannet was not replaced. Newspaper accounts later that year point to a drop in shipping and a struggle to meet the wages of pilots due to the resulting loss in revenue to the port. Although other boats were employed at Passage, and an occasional replacement at Dunmore, the Seagull carried out the duties on her own at Dunmore East until she was replaced at some point in the early 1930s by the Elsie J.
A recent announcement that the Port of Waterford had commissioned a new pilot boat to be called the Portlairge II prompted a flurry of communication to me asking for details and some of the history of the pilots. So this months blog is a journey from 1816 to the present looking at some of the piloting in the harbour and in particular those vessels that held the title of pilot boat
Waterford Harbour Commissioners were established in 1816, which included pilotage as a central function. Captain Thomas Hunt was appointed Pilot Master by Trinity House and Benjamin Conn was appointed his deputy. On the 1 November 1816 Conn brought 19 men who had been appointed as the first pilots to the offices in town to receive their instructions. Not long after another 11 men were appointed.[i]
My understanding of the pilots function really only comes from a modern perspective and so I won’t pretend to know for sure. But the pilots were charged with replacing the Hobblers who had operated in the harbour, possibly for several centuries.[ii] Ships entering port would signal by flag in daylight or by lantern at night. Dunmore was the outer pilot station with Passage as an inner station. A third boat is mentioned in the early years, but I don’t know if this was in the city, Cheekpoint or a relief boat. In the early years many ships only required pilotage to Passage where they anchored and were emptied by lighters. Others proceeded up to the city, or to Cheekpoint where a New Ross pilot took charge. Pilots were obviously required for the outward journeys too.
The first mention I could find of a pilot boat was 1824 when the Scott answered a distress signal from the steam packet Ivanhoe. The pilot boat was joined by the revenue cruiser Hound, both of which were based at Dunmore where, it would seem, the Ivanhoe was bound with mails.[iii] Elsewhere in 1824 I found mention of a pilot boat called Caroline. There was also a sad account of a young Passage lad named Hearne who was lost off another pilot boat Sarah.[iv] (Post-publication – I also found a reference to the loss of pilot James Power in 1822. In March that year, James was bringing the brig, Martha, into port when it overturned off Broomhill, Wexford. Only one of a ten-man crew survived. source: Shipwrecks off the Waterford Coast)
In 1826 both the Scott and the Caroline are mentioned in the one report. They have spoken with Roger Stewart and brig Wellington, Eliza and Ann and the brig Agenoria and have reported back on the port of departure, port of destination, master, cargo and the number of days at sea.[v] Although such a procedure might seem silly to us now, in those days of sail with little by way of communication, such details were vital elements of passing along intelligence to sailors families, the ship owners and the merchants with an interest in the cargo. Such intelligence was passed along to ships agents, nautical publications such as Lloyds List etc.
According to the accounts of the commissioners in 1830 the income from pilotage amounted to Inbound – £1, 775 13 10 and Outbound – 1,577 3 10. Various costs are mentioned in terms of pilotage incl timber, cordage and sails etc for several pilot boats, cost of two six oared yawls for the pilot establishment £53 18 3, the rent of the ballast office and watch houses at Passage and Dunmore, subsidence of pilots and assistants on board the pilot boats and the salaries of Pilot Master, Deputy Pilot Master and Acting Deputy Pilot Master. There was also the wages of 39 pilots, 10 assistants and of extra pilots occasionally employed. Just as an interesting aside for the die hards of harbour history, there was also a substantial sum mentioned in excess of £4k for the widening of the of the channels of the upper and lower Ford to 210 feet wide, 7 feet deep at low water on ordinary spring tides.[vi]
In Late November 1830 the pilot boat Enterprise of Dunmore went to try assist the schooner Unity of New Ross, Andrew Power, master. She was laden with coal for her home port and got into difficulties to the west of Dunmore, the Enterprise tried to come alongside and failing this encouraged the crew to make more sail in an effort to get her off the shore, but she grounded at Black Nobb and although four of the crew were lost, one was rescued from the shore.[vii]
At the August meeting of the Harbour Commissioners in 1842 a wide ranging discussion took place into the pilots and in particular the current pilot boats on station. Three vessels were named:
Dart – a small, good weather boat, but of limited use in storms.
Enterprise is described as a vessel “…whose decks were so split by the sun, that the men were continually wet when between decks, by the spray.”
Scott – suggested that she be temporarily repaired and sent down to replace the Enterprise
The Dart was described as an experiment, which had paid dividends to the port in that she cost less to buy, had increased the number of vessels boarded by pilots to a tune of 25% and this offset any perceived loss due to inability to travel in bad weather. It was claimed that because she was a novelty there was a prejudice against her. This prompted a rather barbed comment that “The committee did not rely on the airy statements of casual visitors to bathing places…” for information on their craft. After a long discussion the decision of the committee was that the Scott and the Enterprise be repaired and the Dart be discontinued, on the understanding that she was a danger to the men who served in her. As you will see from the advert below, such decisions took time to be realised however.
The early 1850s were a difficult time for one pilot boat in particular. The Falcon was designed by a Dublin naval architect named Marshall. Interestingly, when asked if the pilot master (Alcock) had been consulted on the design, this was very quickly brushed aside in a very dismissive way. It seems the pilots experience was nothing to a man of learning from Dublin. The plans were agreed and handed over to Mr Albert White, of Whites Shipyard, Ferrybank…and that as they say was only the start of an unholy fiasco.
According to the late Bill Irish the smack Falcon was built in 1852. She was 51ft long x 14ft beam x 9ft draft and was 37tons.[viii] However a war of words and letters would later break out, the completed Falcon was considered by her proposers as a fine vessel, but the pilots and their employers were less than satisfied in the vessels seaworthiness. Ultimately it all ended up in court, and as far as I can determine the Falcon never saw service for the Commissioners. As part of the settlement some of the expense of the project was to be recouped and invested in a new boat from Whites, the Gannet (1856) described as a pilot cutter 58ft x 16ft x 9ft and 40tons burden.[ix]
In 1859 I found the first mention of a vessel that went on to have a sterling career with the pilot service, Seagull.[x] (New information – Seagull (1851) was bought from the yard of G & J Inman on Lymington in the UK for £900 and first sailed from Dunmore as a pilot cutter on the 3rd January 1855)
In 1862 there was a couple of interesting agenda items at the monthly meeting of the harbour commissioners. Mr William Hogan at Passage brought a complaint about the colocation of a telegraph office in the pilot house at Passage and the inconvenience this might cause to his office. This was not seen as a major issue by the commissioners however. I can only suppose that this dates the origins of a telegraph connection from the village? Meanwhile Board member TC Spencer expressed concern about the costs associated with the running of the pilots, which he stated were running at a loss of £800 PA. In another interesting aside, a letter was read from a Mr B Dawson, Cork “…with respect of storm signals being erected on the quay for the benefit of shipping, stating the suggestion was made from purely philanthropic motives and that the expense would be only about £14”[xi] I’ve long theorised about some flag based communication or other means within the harbour, I look forward to finding out more about this detail.
1862 also saw the Gannet and crew involved in a mercy mission when on the 22nd January they managed to rescue the crew of the stricken Waterford brig, Sophia, [inbound from Cardiff with coal] after she ran ashore at Creaden Head. (Source Shipwrecks off the Waterford Coast)
In 1863 the pilot boat Gannett was sunk after a collision with the steamer Beta close to the bar above Creaden Head. The matter was considered to be the fault of the master and crew of the pilot boat and there was an appeal for her replacement as it was felt that with only one boat at Dunmore, piloting would suffer.[xii]
In 1868 a salvage claim was before the court of admiralty which describes an incident between the brig Cherubin and mentions two pilot boats. One is The Joseph, described as a decked craft of 27 tons which was used for pilotage although it seems she was merely a relief boat. It appears the regular boat was under repairs, while the Seagull is described as not available as she was up the haven at Passage.
The Seagull had a sometimes a bit part and sometimes a major role in the years after including the loss of five coastguard men at Broomhill in 1869 and the inquiry into the wreck of the Alfred D Snow (1888) but due to space constraints, I will jump to 1913. At a meeting of the pilot committee of the Harbour Board in 1913 pilots Glody and Kirby of Dunmore East station were called as representatives of the pilots (then numbering a skipper [Pilot Master?] and nine pilots). A number of issues were raised including pay, conditions and work. The pilots objected to having to man the trawler Uncle Sam even for a few weeks in summer as a substitute while the Seagull was at Waterford being repaired. The trawler was not sufficiently comfortable, but they had nothing to say against the Seagull, except that they would prefer a motor or steam boat.[xiii] The concern for comfort arose as the pilots lived aboard the vessels for days and sometimes longer as they awaited ships. A tough life, with little comforts, a dry bunk and decent food was surely not much to ask.
In April 1933 I found a mention of a pilot cutter named the Elsie J. She was on station in 1932, as the details given are about running expenses including repairs during that year amounting to £182 1s 11d. The costs have increased due to the repairs that were carried out.[xiv] As of now, I can’t determine when she commenced on station however. In October 1937, an unidentified pilot cutter (possibly the Elsie J) had a lucky escape after a sudden change in wind direction caused the boat to drag the anchor and she was driven towards Councillors Strand. The pilots aboard had no choice but to man the small punt and escape towards the shore. Fortunately they landed safely after an “exciting tussle with the huge waves”. Equally as fortunate, the anchor stuck fast just off the shore, and the cutter was spared[xv]. Post Publication David Carroll discovered another pilot cutter Petrel operating on the station too.
In June 1942 an unnamed pilot cutter “…recently acquired arrived in Waterford from Limerick… The vessel is in the command of Capt Stubbs, a Waterford native”[xvi] I am speculating this is the Lily Doreen because when she was sold in 1951 it was mentioned that she was bought second hand from Limerick. In June 1947 it was reported that the Lily Doreen had been struck by the Milford Haven steam trawler East Coast and that Tyrells of Arklow had estimated the damage to cost £450 to repair.[xvii]For further information on the Lily Doreen check this blog out. Thanks to David Carroll for the link.
The emergency era was a difficult time for the pilots, as there was a shipping slump and the minutes of the Commissioners in May of 1944 show that pilots Doherty and E Fitzgerald were tasked with maintaining the station while the following men were laid off temporarily on what was called an “economy scheme” J Donnelly, Jos Walsh, M Walsh, E Kelly, G Power & T Furlong. They were “to be reinstated as soon as soon as trade conditions warrant it” Meanwhile John Walsh and Richard Walsh would be retained in the city, while Henry Rodgers would maintain a lonely vigil at Passage East and to be available for inward or outward duties. (source – David Carroll, Minutes Books WHC – NLI)
My neighbour Brigid Power often told me the story of how she would walk up with her mother and siblings to Coolbunnia from the village to watch for her father Capt Andrew Doherty who was pilot master on the Lily Doreen and I would imagine he also served on the Elsie J and Petral. When they were at Passage East at night he would signal them with a lantern on the dusk and it was his way of reassuring his family that all was well. To the best of my knowledge the Lily Doreen was replaced in 1951. She was advertised for sale in December.[xviii]
Her replacement was still at Dunmore East when I was fishing there in the 1980’s the Betty Breen named after the daughter of then chairman of the Board, Martin S Breen, and Betty also performed the naming of the vessel in October 1951 at Tyrells boatyard in Arklow. The Betty Breen made her maiden voyage to Waterford shortly afterwards and it was said that her arrival was witnessed by a large crowd.[xix]
The Betty Breen had a busy time of it at Dunmore. Although she played a role in numerous rescues and other events, one of the more interesting I found was the case of the Liverpool pilot which she took from the ship Chriapo, en route from Liverpool to the West Indies for bananas. Having sailed out the Mersey into a NW gale, he could not be retrieved and so headed for Dunmore and the Betty Breen, and then to Waterford and via train to Rosslare and home.[xx] At least this pilot had a less eventful trip, than his colleague Philip Barrio at Passage East in 1892. The Betty Breen was advertised for sale in the summer of 1993, her service days were over.[xxi]
A number of vessels have served the pilots since including the Catherine Downey, later Maritana, the Tom Brennan (Jan 1994) the Dun Mhor (2016). I have no doubt that I have missed a few others as the searching via newspapers has its limitations. If any reader can add more details I would appreciate it. Undoubtedly the Portlairge II will see many years of loyal service to the harbour. Hopefully it won’t be as eventful as some of her predecessors but either way I look forward to seeing the vessel in operation this coming September.
My thanks to Tomas Sullivan for helping with getting this started, to Darren Doyle at the Port of Waterford, to Brendan Grogan and Paul Duffin for photos. Needless to say, all errors and omissions are my own.
[i] Mary Breen. Waterford Port and harbour 1815-1842. 2019. Four Courts Press. Dublin. p 33
[ii] Andrew Doherty, Waterford Harbour Tides & Tales. 2020. The History Press. Cheltenham. (see chapter 9 Sails Ahoy Hobblers. pp 62-65)
[iii] Waterford Mail – Saturday 06 November 1824. Page 3
[iv] Waterford Mail – Wednesday 27 October 1824, page 2
[v] Waterford Mail, Saturday 12th August 1826, page 4
[vi] Waterford Mail – Wednesday 17 February 1830; page 1
[vii] Waterford Mail – Saturday 04 December 1830; page 4
[viii] Bill Irish. Shipbuilding in Waterford 1820-1882. (2001) Wordwell Books. Wicklow. P.240
[x] Waterford Mail – Saturday 13 August 1859; page 3
[xi] Waterford Mail – Wednesday 19 February 1862; page 2
[xii] Waterford Chronicle – Friday 15 January 1864; page 3
[xiii] Munster Express, Saturday, August 23, 1913; Page: 6
[xiv] Waterford Standard – Saturday 08 April 1933; page 7
[xv] Waterford Standard – Saturday 30 October 1937; page 3
[xvi] Munster Express, Friday, June 12, 1942; Page: 3
[xvii] Waterford Standard – Saturday 14 June 1947; page 6
[xviii] Irish Examiner, Thursday, December 06, 1951; Page: 7
[xix] Waterford News and Star, Friday, October 12, 1951; Page: 3
[xx] Irish Examiner, Saturday, January 03, 1959; Page: 7
[xxi] Munster Express, Friday, July 09, 1993; Page: 9
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.