Castle Aching

[Nearholmer]

Well, I have found the "get out" clause!

 

The earliest complete version of the BoT 'Requirements and Recommendations' that I can find on-line is from 1928 (there is an 1885, amended to 1902, but it seems only to be the 'construction' part, not the 'operation' part).

 

This has the usual appendix about mixed trains, which effectively says that you can only run them on main lines with special, case-by-case, permission from Minister, then right at the very end a footnote ........ "The above Regulations do not apply to troop train traffic".

 

So ....... troop trains with tails unfitted tails of cattle and other trucks were acceptable, provided that there was a brake van at the very rear.

 

The 'brake van at the rear' requirement was still universal in the 1902 version, irrespective of whether the train had continuous brakes or not. It didn't differentiate between passenger-type and goods-type brake vans, so the railway would choose what to use, based on the operating speed of the train, the brake force needed, and, key in the case under consideration, whether accommodation was needed for drovers or grooms.

 

So ........ troops were treated as everyone else from a "lock, block, and brake" perspective, they rode in continuously braked coaches at the front, but could be subject to the small additional risk of being bowled along at a high speed, with a load of unbraked trucks rattling along behind, ready to pile into them in the event of a very heavy brake application from the loco. I'm sure that the railways knew how to manage that risk down to vanishingly small, by use of screw couplings and diligence on the part of staff.

 

Got there in the end ....... thank you for provoking learning!

 

Kevin

 

Picture below shows what happened when diligence was wanting. A troop train wrecked at Gomshall on the SECR, in 1906, when the driver exceeded the customary speed over a crossing, presumably the typical SER set-up, where a goods line crossed the main at right angles to connect the up and down goods yards ....... this standard design caused plenty of accidents over the years!

Edited February 9, 2017 by Nearholmer

[Northroader]

Maybe your better half could come in on this one, (I'm missing her terribly on my thread) my understanding of horseboxes is that travelling in a vehicle with an open view of the passing countryside would discompooperate the occupants and make them fretchit, so horseboxes were always enclosed. Cattle, it seems, didn't count, and as there'd never be enough horse boxes to go round, nonrankers dobbins drew the short straw.

On the question of branding vehicles, this idea was started by Prussia, an army attached to a country. With the rise of Railways, the military machine quickly grasped the idea that you could move an entire army long distances very quickly by train, which helped starting wars no end. The KPEV were told to brand all their goods wagons with the capacity to take either fully equipped soldiers or horses, and after establishment of the empire, the other states followed suit. Wagons which couldn't be used for army transport, mainly beer vans, were branded "spezialwagen". This practice was copied by the French. Funnily enough, at the end of WW1, American army units had experienced the joys of travel in these, and the French Railways sent several over to the States.http://www.fortyandeight.org/history-of-the-408/

[TheQ]

Right up until during Maggie Thatchers reign the military were exempt any health and safety regulations, as were any state businesses such as the NHS, as they were classed as Crown property. The government couldn't be sued, so military trains being exempt safety regulations  does not suprise me.

[Edwardian]

Well, I have found the "get out" clause!

 

The earliest complete version of the BoT 'Requirements and Recommendations' that I can find on-line is from 1928 (there is an 1885, amended to 1902, but it seems only to be the 'construction' part, not the 'operation' part).

 

This has the usual appendix about mixed trains, which effectively says that you can only run them on main lines with special, case-by-case, permission from Minister, then right at the very end a footnote ........ "The above Regulations do not apply to troop train traffic".

 

So ....... troop trains with tails unfitted tails of cattle and other trucks were acceptable, provided that there was a brake van at the very rear.

 

The 'brake van at the rear' requirement was still universal in the 1902 version, irrespective of whether the train had continuous brakes or not. It didn't differentiate between passenger-type and goods-type brake vans, so the railway would choose what to use, based on the operating speed of the train, the brake force needed, and, key in the case under consideration, whether accommodation was needed for drovers or grooms.

 

So ........ troops were treated as everyone else from a "lock, block, and brake" perspective, they rode in continuously braked coaches at the front, but could be subject to the small additional risk of being bowled along at a high speed, with a load of unbraked trucks rattling along behind, ready to pile into them in the event of a very heavy brake application from the loco. I'm sure that the railways knew how to manage that risk down to vanishingly small, by use of screw couplings and diligence on the part of staff.

 

Got there in the end ....... thank you for provoking learning!

 

Kevin

 

Picture below shows what happened when diligence was wanting. A troop train wrecked at Gomshall on the SECR, in 1906, when the driver exceeded the customary speed over a crossing, presumably the typical SER set-up, where a goods line crossed the main at right angles to connect the up and down goods yards ....... this standard design caused plenty of accidents over the years!

 

Well thank you very much, Kevin for sorting that out!

 

And great pictures of the Gomshall accident.

 

I have it as 20 February 1904. I believe there were injuries, but no fatalities on the day.

 

I note the service dress worn with great coats and Boer War style slouch hats, and I wondered who they were.   

 

According to the Surrey Mirror & County Post the train comprised four coaches of First, Second and Third Class accommodation and two Guard's Vans and was conveying "A draft of about 150 men of the 2nd Northumberland Fusiliers from Gravesend to Plymouth for embarkation to Mauritius".

 

 

Maybe your better half could come in on this one, (I'm missing her terribly on my thread) my understanding of horseboxes is that travelling in a vehicle with an open view of the passing countryside would discompooperate the occupants and make them fretchit, so horseboxes were always enclosed. Cattle, it seems, didn't count, and as there'd never be enough horse boxes to go round, nonrankers dobbins drew the short straw.

On the question of branding vehicles, this idea was started by Prussia, an army attached to a country. With the rise of Railways, the military machine quickly grasped the idea that you could move an entire army long distances very quickly by train, which helped starting wars no end. The KPEV were told to brand all their goods wagons with the capacity to take either fully equipped soldiers or horses, and after establishment of the empire, the other states followed suit. Wagons which couldn't be used for army transport, mainly beer vans, were branded "spezialwagen". This practice was copied by the French. Funnily enough, at the end of WW1, American army units had experienced the joys of travel in these, and the French Railways sent several over to the States.http://www.fortyandeight.org/history-of-the-408/

 

Good point about the not seeing out.  I'll check.  The point raised earlier by Don is a good one.  In road horse boxes horses need a bar to keep them standing up.  In a cattle wagon with 6-7 horses, they keep each other in place!

 

Ah, Prussia, not a State with an Army, but an Army with a State, as you say.  Interesting stuff, though the fact that we had plans in place since 1866 for mass mobilisation by rail suggests that we were not far behind our Continental Cousins, and certainly not so by 1914. 

 

 

Right up until during Maggie Thatchers reign the military were exempt any health and safety regulations, as were any state businesses such as the NHS, as they were classed as Crown property. The government couldn't be sued, so military trains being exempt safety regulations  does not suprise me.

 

Yes, the large bright yellow square on the armoured night sight cover on our CVRs (Scimitars-Sabres) really added to the realism of training/made a great aiming point.

 

I was in the TA when this all came in, and my first accident in the army came when I rounded the corner of a dimly lit barrack corridor and tripped over a Health and Safety slippery floor warning tripod.

 

The application of regulations without intelligence is a kind of Hell, and there would definitely be a Circle in any updated Inferno for the clipboard wielders.  

[Nearholmer]

Q

 

The exemption is very narrow, and looks to me like something that was added to regularise widespread practice, as with the drovers and grooms exception.

 

What is pretty clear is that troop trains were often composed of the sort of stock that didn't meet "current new build standards and best practice", probably vehicles that spent most of their time in sidings, and only got dragged for a trip to the seaside, or a trip to war.

 

Now a legal question: while crown immunity interfered with the application of H&S legislation to the military, was it not still possible to prosecute for failure in a duty of care, under common law?

 

Kevin

[TheQ]

You cannot prosecute the Queen in her own Courts.

In those days anything Owned  / run by Her Majesties Government was deemed to be immune from prosecution. At least that's how I understand what the situation was.

 

Sorry I can't find a reference, all that seems to come up at the moment is todays situation.

[Edwardian]

Q

 

The exemption is very narrow, and looks to me like something that was added to regularise widespread practice, as with the drovers and grooms exception.

 

What is pretty clear is that troop trains were often composed of the sort of stock that didn't meet "current new build standards and best practice", probably vehicles that spent most of their time in sidings, and only got dragged for a trip to the seaside, or a trip to war.

 

Now a legal question: while crown immunity interfered with the application of H&S legislation to the military, was it not still possible to prosecute for failure in a duty of care, under common law?

 

Kevin

 

 

You cannot prosecute the Queen in her own Courts.

In those days anything Owned  / run by Her Majesties Government was deemed to be immune from prosecution. At least that's how I understand what the situation was.

 

Sorry I can't find a reference, all that seems to come up at the moment is todays situation.

 

Pre-1947 I would think there would be little you could do to claim damages against the Crown for, say, negligence causing an accident.  The post-1947 position is, however, a matter that I have advised on in the past:

 

Historically the Crown has enjoyed a significant degree of immunity from civil liability, but these advantages were largely removed by the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. 

 

It is possible to make a claim in contract or in tort against the Crown. 

 

In relation to tort, the Crown is potentially liable in respect of:

 

(i) Torts committed by its servants and agents.  The Crown is vicariously liable in circumstances where there would be a cause of action against the servant;

(ii) Any breach of those duties which a person owes to his servants or agents by reason of being their employer;

(iii) Any breach of the duties attaching at common law to the ownership, possession or control of property; and,

(iv) Any breach of a statutory duty where a statute binds the Crown and where the breach is remediable in damages.  It should be noted that the Crown is not bound by a statute unless the statute expressly or impliedly states that it binds the Crown. 

 

The general principles governing tortious liability apply to the Crown.

 

Cause of Action

 

Recognised categories of tort include:

 

(a) Negligence;

(b) Negligent misstatement; and, peculiar to the Crown;

© Breach of statutory duty; and,

(d) Misfeasance in public office.

 

Negligence

 

To establish liability a claimant must demonstrate that a duty of care was owed by the defendant to the claimant; that there was a breach of that duty; and that the breach caused recoverable loss.

 

In addition, where the Crown is the defendant, the question of whether a common law duty of care arises in relation to the exercise of a statutory function, and, if so, its ambit, is likely to be “profoundly influenced” (Per Lord Browne-Wilkinson in X v. Bedfordshire CC [1995] AC 633, at 739B) by the statutory framework within which the acts complained of were done.  The purpose for which the statutory functions were conferred, and the persons intended to benefit from their exercise may influence the question of whether a duty of care to take reasonable steps to protect such persons arose.

 

In deciding whether a duty of care arose, the court will first look to see if there was foreseeability of harm to the claimant in the negligent performance of the statutory functions, though foreseeability of harm alone will not establish a duty of care.  Second, there must be proximity; a direct and close relationship that justifies imposing liability on the defendant.  Third, it must be just and reasonable to impose a duty of care.   Finally, even where these conditions are met, public policy may require that no liability should be imposed (Hill v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53).

 

An issue relevant to the test outlined above is consideration of the purpose for which a statutory purpose was conferred and whether it was conferred for the purpose of protecting the category of persons that includes the claimant.

Edited February 9, 2017 by Edwardian

[corneliuslundie]

I assume you will be charging your usual rate for that legal advice (at least £100 an hour I am sure).

Slightly off target but relevant, i think. There is reference in Rhymney Railway documents to circumstances when a train carrying passengers could have a mineral brake van (unfitted) rather than a passenger one. The conclusion after some debate that this was workmen's trains, possibly those operated by the colliery company over the railway company's lines - which appears to have happened on Sundays when the railway was not otherwise open. What is not known at the moment is whether and from when the colliery company's stock was fitted with continuous brakes, There are four photos of Dowlais Iron Co passenger vehicles in Volume 14 of Turton. Only the one built in 1898 has vacuum pipes. It is not possible to see whether there is a vacuum cylinder. It is also not certain that they ran over railway company lines, as the DIC had long internal lines. But it does seem likely that they were so used, as no other stock is mentioned as being used for the purpose.

Like trains for the military these were not provided for the public and therefore to a certain extent were exempt from the legislation on continuous brakes etc.

Slightly more off piste, on the Burry Port & Gwendraeth Valley Railway passengers were carried on goods trains for many years. No charge was made for the passengers put there was a charge for their bags. In due time the company acquired some passenger stock, upgraded its line and ran legal passenger trains.

Of course all sorts of things like this happened in the early days of railways, but by the end of the century they were pretty rare.

Jonathan

Edited February 9, 2017 by corneliuslundie

[Northroader]

I've given you an 'informative/ useful' rating, in the pious hope I might understand it all one day.

[uax6]

The lower ranks dobbins in cattle wagons *should* have had wagon sheets over the top to restrict the animals view so that they didn't get frisky, but I note that they seem to be singularly lacking on those pictures..

 

Up in Scotland, where mixed trains lasted up until modern times, it was perfectly legal to have an unfitted goods brake at the rear of the train, but the guard *had* to ride in this last vehicle, as he had to do if it was a fitted one.

 

The Highland allowed you to journey in the guards vehicle (The Highland had lovely road vans for the guards http://www.ambaile.org.uk/detail/en/28672/1/EN28672-highland-railway-goods-brake-van.htm ) on a freight train if you signed an indemnity and also paid the first class fare (the LMS continued this practise too!).

 

Andy G

[Nearholmer]

UAx6

 

Mixed trains were perfectly legal in England and Wales too, provided that they were operated within the restrictions set out in the Appendix to 'The Requirements', which basically said that on lines with very low speeds all the trains could be mixed, and on lines with very high speeds (without checking, I think the high speed threshold was 50mph) none could be, except with case-by-case permission, and, as we now know, except if they were troop trains. Middling speed lines were allowed some mixed trains. And, yes, the guard always had to travel at the back, in case a coupling broke in the unfitted portion.

 

(I reckon the HR/LMS were breaking the law, unless they had special exemption, but that just made me think about all those enthusiast excursions that involved lots of chaps in gabardine macs riding down freight only branch-lines in open wagons. They were probably illegal too!)

 

Edwardian

 

Looks to me as if, between 1947 and 1974, it would still have been very difficult indeed to take a case against the military as an employer, because employers' duties of care were, I think, really only defined in very trade-specific laws ...... factories; mines and quarries; offices, shops, and railway premises; etc ...... the list ran to pages of them, but not, I guess, one for the armed forces. After 1974, presumably the Health & Safety at Work etc Act would have given an "in".

 

Which was all a bit late for Edwardian soldiers.

 

Kevin

Edited February 9, 2017 by Nearholmer

[Adams442T]

Looks to me as if, between 1947 and 1974, it would still have been very difficult indeed to take a case against the military as an employer, because employers' duties of care were, I think, really only defined in very trade-specific laws ...... factories; mines and quarries; offices, shops, and railway premises; etc ...... the list ran to pages of them, but not, I guess, one for the armed forces. After 1974, presumably the Health & Safety at Work etc Act would have given an "in".

 

Which was all a bit late for Edwardian soldiers.

 

Kevin

 

Even after the 1974 Act there was very little protection for servicemen and women.  My late wife, a Squadron Leader (Intelligence) in the RAF, who contracted a fungal infection when working in an underground 'War Headquarters' in Maastricht  in 1982, which killed her in the end, was unable to bring any action against the UK because of 'Crown Immunity'.

Not only that but we were still being harassed by the MOD 'War Pensions Department' who required us to get her to a tribunal in Birmingham to 'prove she was unfit'.  Electric wheelchair, 24 hour oxygen supplies and all, just before she died in 2006! 

[BG John]

UAx6

 

Mixed trains were perfectly legal in England and Wales too, provided that they were operated within the restrictions set out in the Appendix to 'The Requirements', which basically said that on lines with very low speeds all the trains could be mixed, and on lines with very high speeds (without checking, I think the high speed threshold was 50mph) none could be, except with case-by-case permission, and, as we now know, except if they were troop trains. Middling speed lines were allowed some mixed trains. And, yes, the guard always had to travel at the back, in case a coupling broke in the unfitted portion.

Not all of them needed brake vans. The K&ESR had an exemption, and just had to display a LV board on the rear wagon. I need to do further research on this, as it allows my layout to be shorter by two brake van lengths!

[Nearholmer]

Yes, and I've never been able to understand why.

 

It has some b steep gradients north of rolvenden, and gravity works just the same in that part of Kent as everywhere else - I fell off my bike near there, so I can testify to that.

 

K

[Caley Jim]

Up in Scotland, where mixed trains lasted up until modern times, it was perfectly legal to have an unfitted goods brake at the rear of the train, but the guard *had* to ride in this last vehicle, as he had to do if it was a fitted one.

 

The Highland allowed you to journey in the guards vehicle (The Highland had lovely road vans for the guards http://www.ambaile.org.uk/detail/en/28672/1/EN28672-highland-railway-goods-brake-van.htm ) on a freight train if you signed an indemnity and also paid the first class fare (the LMS continued this practise too!).

It was not unknown for HR mixed trains to be marshalled with the unfitted freight vehicles inside the coach (the brakes of which were therefore no longer operational) as this made it easier to shunt the yards.  That way it was easier to 'park' the coach at the platform while shunting was carried out.  They did get caught out a few times when things went awry, but when you are 500+ miles from the BoT in the wilds of Sutherland or Wester Ross.........

 

Jim

[Edwardian]

UAx6

 

Mixed trains were perfectly legal in England and Wales too, provided that they were operated within the restrictions set out in the Appendix to 'The Requirements', which basically said that on lines with very low speeds all the trains could be mixed, and on lines with very high speeds (without checking, I think the high speed threshold was 50mph) none could be, except with case-by-case permission, and, as we now know, except if they were troop trains. Middling speed lines were allowed some mixed trains. And, yes, the guard always had to travel at the back, in case a coupling broke in the unfitted portion.

 

(I reckon the HR/LMS were breaking the law, unless they had special exemption, but that just made me think about all those enthusiast excursions that involved lots of chaps in gabardine macs riding down freight only branch-lines in open wagons. They were probably illegal too!)

 

Edwardian

 

Looks to me as if, between 1947 and 1974, it would still have been very difficult indeed to take a case against the military as an employer, because employers' duties of care were, I think, really only defined in very trade-specific laws ...... factories; mines and quarries; offices, shops, and railway premises; etc ...... the list ran to pages of them, but not, I guess, one for the armed forces. After 1974, presumably the Health & Safety at Work etc Act would have given an "in".

 

Which was all a bit late for Edwardian soldiers.

 

Kevin

 

Good point.

 

In the advice from which I pulled that redacted extract, I was going through the various routes to claim damages off HMG discarding them one by one before arriving at the conclusion that the only claim for compensatory damages the clients could make in the circumstances of their case was pursuant to section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.  Yes, 1998, and EU-derived.  We really do have very limited recourse when acts of bad or unlawful government cause us financial loss. 

 

I do not think, however, that at any stage gabardine macs have been illegal ...

[Edwardian]

Even after the 1974 Act there was very little protection for servicemen and women.  My late wife, a Squadron Leader (Intelligence) in the RAF, who contracted a fungal infection when working in an underground 'War Headquarters' in Maastricht  in 1982, which killed her in the end, was unable to bring any action against the UK because of 'Crown Immunity'.

Not only that but we were still being harassed by the MOD 'War Pensions Department' who required us to get her to a tribunal in Birmingham to 'prove she was unfit'.  Electric wheelchair, 24 hour oxygen supplies and all, just before she died in 2006! 

 

That is horrific.  Having crossed swords numerous times with HMG, I find the attitude of MoD to be deplorable but entirely believable, but I am very sad and shocked to learn of the illness and loss of your late wife.  I am very sorry.

[The Stationmaster]

Looking at the 1920 RCH Regulations the only reference t any sort of relaxation in respects of trains conveying troops (or drovers) is n respect of the number of Guards and brakevans required where instead of the normal limit of some many brakevans for so many wheels it was permitted to only have one Guard (and therefore by inference only one vehicle on which a handbrake could be applied by a Guard travelling in that vehicle.  the lad was instead limited simply by the pulling power of the engine and not by potential brake force available from hand brakes.  The Vacuum and Westinghouse Brake Regulations mention no sort of relaxations in respect of Troop Trains and they are not mentioned at all in the Mixed Train Regulations.

 

However the Instruction regarding Guards does refer to variation by the appropriate Notice which would suggest to me that troop trains were dealt with more by Special Notice than under the standard procedures.  Interestingly there is no mention of them in the relevant GWR minute book but that selfsame book, which I have just checked, shows there was what might best be described as 'concern' regarding the conveyance of 'modern freight vehicles' attached to express passenger trains ('modern' in this context meaning oil axleboxes and vacuum brake fitted).

 

I would think that any changes made to any relevant Regulations after the Great War could well have reflected what was actually done during the war in order to simplify such train arrangements and avoid the need to seek individual permissions.

 

) was that separtae trOne interesting feature of the 1914 railway plan (which was clearly a work of timetabling and resourcing art which made Schlieffen's efforts look extremely amateurishng and ains were run for horse mobilisation - the horses in question being those which had been subsidised in their civilian life by the War Office.  Unfortunately in his volume covering 1914 Pratt does not explain how the BEF trains to Southampton were formed but the inference is that they conveyed horses, guns, vehicles and bicycles according to whichever way the unit being carried to quayside was organised.  Presumably the same applied to mobilisation trains although would probably simply be for manpower? 

[BG John]

Yes, and I've never been able to understand why.

 

It has some b steep gradients north of rolvenden, and gravity works just the same in that part of Kent as everywhere else - I fell off my bike near there, so I can testify to that.

 

K

I'm trying to dream up a way to display LV boards on the last wagon, without a gigantic hand from the sky attaching them!

[Compound2632]

From Midland Wagons (Bob Essery, OPC) it would appear that the Midland Railway built no cattle wagons with automatic brakes, though an unknown number were built or fitted with through pipes for either vacuum brake only or vacuum and Westinghouse. I would expect that this is representative of the pre-grouping companies.

[Donw]

I'm trying to dream up a way to display LV boards on the last wagon, without a gigantic hand from the sky attaching them!

 

Ian Pope had a modelled tree branch with a few leaves which would be placed across the buffers of the last vehicle before the train left the Fiddle yard. Practice which had been observed in the Forest on the Colliery spurs.

I remember it when I helped operate at Lydney

Don

[BG John]

Ian Pope had a modelled tree branch with a few leaves which would be placed across the buffers of the last vehicle before the train left the Fiddle yard. Practice which had been observed in the Forest on the Colliery spurs.

I remember it when I helped operate at Lydney

Don

I think something involving an open wagon with a tarpaulin hiding batteries, servos and stuff is probably needed!

[ChrisN]

The Cambrian had a number of piped cattle wagons.  I know it is not much help for East Anglia, but if you wish I could work out the percentage; it was not that many.

 

Riding in brake vans.  In the last WRRC Archive it a brake van ride in 1965 was reported.  Apparently on lines where there was no passenger service, you could apply for a Brake Van permit.  The only question asked was to ascertain that you were over 16.  You were then sent your permit, went to the station and paid your fare.  You also signed an indemnity to release BR from any claim in the event of an accident.

[Donw]

That is horrific.  Having crossed swords numerous times with HMG, I find the attitude of MoD to be deplorable but entirely believable, but I am very sad and shocked to learn of the illness and loss of your late wife.  I am very sorry.

 

I fully concur with that. I fully understand that in times of war there may be a need for personnel to be put at risk but there are many cases where Military personnel have been put at risks which were either at times of peace or the risk was something that could have been foreseen (such as unsuitable kit). I think particularly of those subjected to radiation or nerve gases. It is particularly cruel to be fighting cases when any decent person would see that surely the persons involved deserve help. Making a seriously ill person attend a Tribunal is needlessly cruel. My experience of the Military is they do not hesitate to face the enemy they shouldn't need to fight those who should be supporting them.

Don

[Edwardian]

I fully concur with that. I fully understand that in times of war there may be a need for personnel to be put at risk but there are many cases where Military personnel have been put at risks which were either at times of peace or the risk was something that could have been foreseen (such as unsuitable kit). I think particularly of those subjected to radiation or nerve gases. It is particularly cruel to be fighting cases when any decent person would see that surely the persons involved deserve help. Making a seriously ill person attend a Tribunal is needlessly cruel. My experience of the Military is they do not hesitate to face the enemy they shouldn't need to fight those who should be supporting them.

Don

 

I agree.

 

I am no fan of the MoD.  On the one hand it wastes billions in incompetent procurement, whilst, on the other hand, it is penny-pinching to the point of cruelty when it comes to our servicemen and women.

 

One only has to reflect for a moment on Joanna Lumley and the Gurkhas.

 

[Ah......Mmm...]

 

Sorry, I was reflecting for a moment on Joanna Lumley.

 

In all these matters the MoD maintains a fine tradition that stems back as least as far as Good Queen Bess, who refused to pay the sailors who defeated the Spanish Armada and allowed them to starve to death.