Captain Charles Fryatt

[Regulus 1]

Mail on the way !

[Doug Johnson]

James Gerard, American Ambasador to Germany, wrote a small section on Captain Fryatt and his attempts to get him legally represented and the reaction that caused, in his book 'My Four Years in Germany' available free on line here http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/7238.

Doug

[Anthony Bagshaw]

Isn't the Artillery picture actually men of the Royal Marine Artillery?

I believe the photo was taken on the Somme as it features in a book written by Martin Gilbert which i am currently reading.

[Cnock]

Anthony,

I think You are right.

Regards,

Cnock

[centurion]

I’ve just read an interesting item published in the NY Times on July 8th 1919. It describes the bringing back of the body of Captain Charles Fryatt on a destroyer escorted by vessels of the Dover patrol. On landing the body was taken by gun carriage with full military honours to St Pauls for a national memorial service.

Charles Fryatt had been the captain of the British merchant man SS Wrexam and in March 1915 his ship was ordered to stop off the Dutch coast by U-33. Following Admiralty standing orders Fryatt ordered his ship to ram the U boat which was forced to submerge. Fryatt was publicly commended in the House of Commons for his action. The following year he was captured on June 28th 1916 when the ship he was piloting (SS Brussels) was captured and taken to Zeebrugge. A month later the Germans announced that he had been shot by firing squad after a court martial for his action in 1915. He was tried for a “franc- tireur crime against armed German sea forces”.

I find this story quite amazing as I thought it quite legitimate for a merchant ship to resist capture on the high seas. Any further info, comments etc anyone?

[stevem49]

He was mentioned on the tele last week. I think it was on Channel 4. He has a memorial and no one locally seemed to know who he was.

The Government used his execution in a publicity campaign.

stevem

[submarine]

Hi

Try the Channel 4 site /lost generation . Quite a bit about him

there ,there is a memorial at Liverpool Street Station ,to him.

Best wishes

Colin

[Pighills]

Loads of info on the internet - just Google it.

Yes, he was on the telly again the other day, it was a repeat involving Ian Hislop and his look at memorials.

[centurion]

I was wondering if any one had any thoughts about the legitimacy of shooting a merchant skipper for resisting a U boat?

[SiegeGunner]

British Government statement on the trial and execution of Captain Fryatt: http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/fryatt_britishgovt.htm

The article also contains links to the German Government's statement and the response to it by Arthur Balfour.

[pbrydon]

Attached ( and I hope they are legible ) are 2 photos of the Liverpool Scottish escort ( Pipes and Drums in front in the bottom photo ) escorting the funeral procession of Captain Fryatt in Antwerp 6th July 1919

P.B.

[stan johnson]

Further to the above I quote an article in todays "Northern Echo" of a similar case

"A gallantry medal won by the first English merchant Captain to destroy a German Submarine in the first world war is to be sold by his family."

Captain John William Bell, of Alfred street Redcar, was in command of the 500 ton Collier "Thordis", bound for Plymouth with a cargo of coal on Februry 28,1915, when he spotted the periscope of an enemy sub off Beach Head.

The track of a torpedo was seen heading towards the "Thordis", but a wave lifted her stern clear at the last second and it passed harmlessly beneath.

Capt.Bell then rammed the sub-in the first such engagement in military history

Capt Bell was awarded with the (DSC) by King George V at Buckingham Palace"

Unknown to Capt Bell, The publication "The Syren and Shipping" had offered the first British shipping Captain to sink a German U-Boat a £500 reward- a bounty later increased this to £600.

This was presented by the Lord Mayor of London at a reception at the Mansion House and there was a further reward of £200 from the Admiralty.

Captain Bells DSC is expected to fetch up to £5,000 at specialist auctioneers Morton & Eden,in London on November 28th.

[neiluk]

HI ALL,

CAPTAIN FRYATT IS MENTIONED IN A NEW BOOK THAT HAS JUST CAME OUT CALLED "THE FACES OF WORLD WAR 1"

HERE IS WHAT IS WRITTEN:-

"MEN OF THE ROYAL MARINE ARTILLERY WITH 15-INCH SHELL. THESE WERE THE HEAVIEST SHELL USED BY ROYAL MARINE GUNNERS ON THE SOMME. THE CHALK LETTERING : TO CAPTAIN FRYATTS MURDERERS IS A REFERENCE OF CAPTAIN CHARLES FRYATT, A BRITISH MERCHANT NAVY OFFICER. WHILE IN COMMAND OF THE GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY STEAMER, BRUSSELS, FRYATT HAD ATTEMPTED TO RAM A GERMAN SUBMARINE . WEEKS LATER, THE GERMANS BOARDED THE BRUSSELS AND SEIZED FRYATT. HE WAS TRIED FOR PIRACY, FOUND GUILTY AND SHOT.

THERE IS A PHOTO OF THE SHELLS WITH THE REFERENCE ON THEM, BUT AT THE MOMENT I CANT UPLOAD IT.

HOPE THIS HELPS

CHEERS

NEIL

[Billy1963]

Captain Bells DSC is expected to fetch up to £5,000 at specialist auctioneers Morton & Eden,in London on November 28th.

Captain Bell's DSC was eventually sold at auction for £4.140.

[Billy1963]

Photo Captain Bell's grave. I'm hoping to raise funds to have the cross from the headstone re-mounted.

[ph0ebus]

Hi all,

This thread is interesting to me as the Captain of the ship that brought my mom's family over to the US from Scotland actually succeeded in doing what Captain Fryatt only attempted. Captain James Blaikie was Captain of the Anchor Line's T.S.S. Caledonia during the Great War when she met her fate in the Mediterranean on December 5th, 1916. When 125 miles east of Malta she encountered the German submarine U-65, which torpedoed her without warning. Upon being torpedoed, Captain Blaikie decided to take the submarine with him and rammed the submarine with his sinking ship, but unfortunately the impact was insufficient to sink her. Though the submarine was not destroyed when the Caledonia ran over her, she was flattened out on the port side forward for about 130 feet to a depth of eighteen inches. The stem had been bent to starboard, the periscope doubled up, and the wireless gear on the port side carried away. These injuries resulted in leakage around some of the plates, and after the submarine had gained the surface she was unable to submerge. The Caledonia sank within 45 minutes. Captain Blaikie was taken prisoner by the Germans, and threatened with being shot, as Captain Fryatt had been before. The British government gave a stern reply, something to the effect of 'you shoot one of ours, and we'll shoot one of yours'. The Germans changed their mind, and kept Blaikie alive. He survived the war and was eventually released.

Take care,

-Daniel

[Adrian Roberts]

I was wondering if any one had any thoughts about the legitimacy of shooting a merchant skipper for resisting a U boat?

I've only just come across this thread and Centurion's question.

Basically, the German argument was that Fryatt's action amounted to piracy as he was not supposed to be a combatant. Presumably they expected merchant ship crews attacked by submarines to sit there and take it. But the German statement put out after Fryatts execution reads:

"the accused was condemned to death because, although he was not a member of a combatant force, he made an attempt ...on March 20, 1915 to ram the German submarine U33....

one of the many nefarious franc-tireur proceedings of the British merchant marine against our war vessels has thus found a belated but merited expiation".

Breathtaking self-righteousness of course. But the British had agonised over the introduction of Q-ships due to concerns about whether it was legal. This was reinforced by German propagandists after the first major Q-ship action when the SS Baralong allegedly sunk U27 while flying a US flag and then shot some of the survivors.

Strictly speaking it was illegal to fit defensive armament to merchant ships as occured later in the war and in WW2, but by then no-one cared.

[Clio]

I've only just come across this thread and Centurion's question.

Basically, the German argument was that Fryatt's action amounted to piracy as he was not supposed to be a combatant. Presumably they expected merchant ship crews attacked by submarines to sit there and take it. But the German statement put out after Fryatts execution reads:

"the accused was condemned to death because, although he was not a member of a combatant force, he made an attempt ...on March 20, 1915 to ram the German submarine U33....

one of the many nefarious franc-tireur proceedings of the British merchant marine against our war vessels has thus found a belated but merited expiation".

Breathtaking self-righteousness of course. But the British had agonised over the introduction of Q-ships due to concerns about whether it was legal. This was reinforced by German propagandists after the first major Q-ship action when the SS Baralong allegedly sunk U27 while flying a US flag and then shot some of the survivors.

Strictly speaking it was illegal to fit defensive armament to merchant ships as occured later in the war and in WW2, but by then no-one cared.

[centurion]

"Strictly speaking it was illegal to fit defensive armament to merchant ships as occurred later in the war and in WW2, but by then no-one cared."

When did this become illegal? In earlier wars it had been normal practice. A good example being when a number of East India Men formed line of battle and saw off an attacking French squadron. (A fictionalised account of this action is found in Patrick O'Brian's HMS Surprise but it actually happened.) It was also recognised as legitimate for a warship to be disguised as a merchantman so long as it showed its true colours before opening fire. When did all of this change?

[Clio]

It all boils down to the prize regulations. The first contact between intercepting vessel and suspected blockade runner was expected to take the form of a a stop and search policing operation. The merchant was required to stop immediately when called upon do do so by the intercepting ship and the interceptor in turn was bound by international law to use appropriate search techqniques (which did not include opening fire a l'outrance) Should a suspect vessel attempt to outrun the intercepting vessel, pre-war case law indicates that the vessel concerned would lose the protection afforded by the legislation.

If the U-boat did not open fire with its gun (I do not believe the U-boat in question was actually armed at the time of this incident but Michael Lowrey will confirm this) then according to the prize regulations, the correct procedure should have been for Captain Fryatt to stop his engines and allow his vessel to be searched by the U boat crew. If Captain Fryatt did attempt to ram the U-boat then the status of his vessel would change immediately and his actions could be classed as an act of aggression against a warship carrying out lawful pursuits.

Of course what is regarded as 'correct' procedure under pre-war legislation becomes something quite different in the heat and tension of wartime conditions. In reality both belligerents were keen to invoke the prize regulations to cry foul against the other, while having no intention of obeisance, themselves.

[centurion]

Yes I undertand all this but it doesn't anwer my question When? When did merchant shipping cease to have the right to be armed and defend itself?

[Billy1963]

Captain Bell's restored headstone. Aplogise for poor quality of photo as I took it on my mobile phone

[bob lembke]

Yes I undertand all this but it doesn't anwer my question When? When did merchant shipping cease to have the right to be armed and defend itself?

Centurion;

I think that there seems to be three questions here. This is quite interesting.

1) As you say above, "when did merchant shipping cease to have the right to be armed and defend itself?" Historically, centuries ago, much or most merchant shipping had a few cannon, and those lines were blurry, to say the least. Plus you had the complication of privateers.

But before the Great War it seems that there was an effort to get this sorted out, and the Prize Laws, etc. gave merchant ships certain protections.

However, to my mind, if a merchant ship armed itself and was ready to defend itself, it probably lost the (hoped for) protections it might enjoy as a merchant ship, and became a (usually) poorly armed warship. Wern't the gun crews uniformed military of some sort? It certainly had the right to "defend itself". But it had no assurance, for example, to not be torpedoed without warning. Is this correct? Adrian stated that, strictly speaking, it was unlawful to arm a merchant ship. I think that he probably meant that one could not arm a merchant ship and expect the legal protections afforded a merchant (civil) ship. Arm it, and it is a warship.

2) What about the original question: What about a merchant captain, not a naval officer nor sailing in a warship, attempting to ram a warship? Certainly permissable for a warship. But a merchant ship, analogous to a civilian individual. While one would sympathise with the impulse to ram, it seems to me that, going by the rules of say January 1914, such an act by a merchant ship could be considered analagous to a civilian, in civvies, suddenly pulling out a pistol and shooting a uniformed enemy soldier. It is not the same thing as a destroyer on patrol ramming a sub. While shooting the captain at first blush seems unjust, it might have followed the rules of January 1914. But I do not know for sure.

3) While the rules of land warfare seemed to have strict rules about the uniforms worn by combatants, I would think that the status of ships would be guided by their actions and by their armament (or lack of same), not the uniform worn by individuals, which could not usually be perceived, anyway. I would think that a crewman on a sunk warship who was wearing civvies, no uniform, should still have the protections afforded a POW.

If the Q-ship Baralong masquaraded as a civilian and neutral US merchant ship, fired on and sunk a U-boat, and then shot some of the survivors in the water, it clearly broke the entire rulebook, not just a rule or two. After an incident or two like this any civilized set of rules would not be supportable. How could a U-boat be expected to extend protections to an apparant unarmed merchant ship?

What about the other incident, I don't remember it clearly, where a British trawler refused to rescue the crew of a downed and floating Zeppelin, and the entire crew subsequently died of exposure, but before dying the airship crew wrote the classic "note in the bottle" (several, I think) which were recovered on the Danish coast, describing the ship that would not rescue them. Didn't the Germans later capture the same trawler and/or crew? Did they shoot them?

Finally, on another, related thread, I mentioned that in a book in the "Propaganda war" a British Captain Morgan, a professor of military law, stated that the Conventions allowed civilians, in civilian clothes, to shoot uniformed enemy combatants, and then surrender and expect to be treated as typical POWs. Is this true? Or was Morgan stating that as a legal defense of Belgian franc-tireurs, which basically was the topic or context of his book? Anyone have an opinion on this? This seems to be relevant to the case of the civilian captain trying to ram a German warship, question 2) above?

So many questions, so little time!

Bob Lembke

[ph0ebus]

Hi Bob,

There was a great debate raging between Germany and the Allies about this very topic for much of the war. I have some books and documents that shed some light on what instructions the Admiralty gave Defensively Armed Merchant Ships (DAMS), but I would recommend finding a copy of The American Journal of International Law, Vol 11, No. 4; Supplement: Diplomatic Correspondance Between the United States and Belligerent Governments Relating to Neutral Rights and Commerce, (Oct. 1917) starting with page 226. I can email you a pdf if you like, just send me a PM.

I will get some other references for you once I am home and have my resources in front of me (I write this presently on board a commuter train).

-Daniel

[IPT]

What about the other incident, I don't remember it clearly, where a British trawler refused to rescue the crew of a downed and floating Zeppelin, and the entire crew subsequently died of exposure, but before dying the airship crew wrote the classic "note in the bottle" (several, I think) which were recovered on the Danish coast, describing the ship that would not rescue them. Didn't the Germans later capture the same trawler and/or crew? Did they shoot them?

Just looked this up.

It was a subsequent crew, when the vessel had become a Q-ship, that were nearly shot until a newspaper article proved that they were innocent.

Why they didn't change the name, i'll never know.

http://www.rna-carmarthen.org.uk/hmt_king_stephen,htm.htm