the masters of the Company’s steamers’. The commander of the Wrexham and of the Brussels was indicated amongst others, and the letter went on to express the Admiralty’s thanks to the officers concerned for conduct ‘which reflected credit on British seamanship’.
These well-earned recognitions, which naturally became generally known, seem to have led to Captain Fryatt’s undoing. The Germans made long and careful preparations to capture him, intending to make an example which they fondly hoped would strike terror into his comrades under the red ensign. At length on the night of 22 June 1916, when the Brussels was homeward bound from the Hook of Holland, she was surrounded and captured by a considerable force of German destroyers, whose action showed that their commanders had obtained full information as to the ship’s intended movements, probably from spies in Holland. The prize was taken into Zeebrugge and the master and crew sent on to Ruhleben internment camp, near Berlin. Captain Fryatt, however, was soon taken back to Belgium, where he was put on his trial before a court martial at Bruges on 27 July 1916 and condemned to death. Two days later he was shot, in spite of the protests of the United States minister, who had before the trial vainly attempted to secure adequate legal assistance for the prisoner. The charge laid against Captain Fryatt was that, not being a member of a combatant force, he had attempted to ram the submarine, u. 88. The official report of the trial characterized the prisoner as a franc-tireur of the sea, and laid stress on the approval of his conduct by the Admiralty and in the House of Commons as an aggravation of his alleged offence.
The deepest indignation was felt by all maritime peoples. The franc-tireur argument was seen to be wholly unfounded. It may be observed that a franc-tireur is a civilian who, without being attacked, picks off enemy soldiers unaware. Captain Fryatt was a civilian, but in no other respect comparable with a franc-tireur. In the House of Commons two days after the execution, Mr. Asquith, then prime minister, characterized the action of the German court martial as ‘murder’, and declared that ‘His Majesty’s government had heard with the utmost indignation of this atrocious crime against the law of nations and the usages of war’. More deliberate judgement in the calmer atmosphere of peace has in no way tended to alter opinion as to the gross illegality of the condemnation of Captain Fryatt.
Charles Fryatt married in 1896 Ethel Townend, who, with one son and six daughters, survived him. On his marriage he settled at Dovercourt, near Harwich. After the conclusion of peace his body was brought from Belgium to England on 7 July 1919 by a British war vessel, and buried at Dovercourt. A memorial service was held in St. Paul’s Cathedral on 8 July.
[The Times, 9 July 1919; private information.]
FURNESS, CHRISTOPHER, first Baron Furness, of Grantley (1852–1912), shipowner and industrialist, was born at West Hartlepool 23 April 1852. He was the seventh son of John Furness, provision merchant, of West Hartlepool, by his wife, Averill, daughter of John Wilson, of Naisbet Hall, co. Durham. Christopher Furness was privately educated and at an early age joined the firm of Thomas Furness & Co., wholesale provision merchants, of which an elder brother, Thomas, was a partner. During the Franco-German War Christopher proved his business ability when acting as agent for this firm in Norway and Sweden. It was at his suggestion that the firm began to use its own steamers in foreign trade. In 1877 the shipping business was separated from the provision business, the elder brother retaining the latter while Christopher set up as a shipowner under the style of Christopher Furness & Co. He next acquired the interest of the principal partner in the shipbuilding firm of Edward Withy & Co., of West Hartlepool. This, in 1891, was amalgamated with his shipping company, as Furness, Withy & Co., Limited. The amalgamation was the first step in a process by which many shipping and shipbuilding organizations, and many coal, steel, and iron undertakings, were linked and co-ordinate under Furness’s guidance.
In 1891, on the death of Mr. Thomas Richardson, the unionist member for the Hartlepools, Furness successfully contested that constituency as a liberal and Home Ruler, defeating another local candidate, Sir William Gray; he held the seat successfully against Mr. Richardson’s son and namesake (afterwards Sir Thomas Richardson) at the general election of 1892, but in 1895 he was defeated in the debacle of the liberal party. In 1898 he was an unsuccessful candidate for York city. In 1900 he was again elected for the Hartlepools, which he represented until the general election of 1910. Though he was re-elected on this occasion, he was
205
