SS. "BEVERLEY."
The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.
REPORT OF COURT.
In the matter of the formal investigation held at Westminster on the 27th and
28th March 1877, before H. C. Rothery, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by
Commander Visconti, R.N., and Captain Nicolas as Assessors, into the
circumstances attending the stranding of the British steamship "BEVERLEY," of
London, on the coast of France about 6 miles north of the mouth of the river
Adour, on the 20th February 1877.
The Commissioner. This case, which we have had before us yesterday and to-day,
has undergone a careful and full investigation. All the witnesses that could be
found have been produced by the Board of Trade, and although one gentleman who
was on board the vessel at the time, acting as supercargo, and whom we should
have been very glad to have seen, has not been produced, neither party has asked
that the case should be adjourned for his production; and as he is, I
understand, at present abroad, the Court has no power to compel his attendance.
Mr. Greenwell, however, who has appeared for the master and the owner, has
raised a technical objection that the copy of the report or statement of the
case which had been served upon the master under the provisions of the Merchant
Shipping Act of 1862, section 23, paragraph 6, gave him no intimation that any
charge of drunkenness during the voyage would be brought against him. I stated
that if he thought that his client had been taken by surprise, and required an
adjournment in order to produce further evidence to rebut that charge, I would
grant it, but he declined to make the application, saying that his objection was
purely a technical one. Under these circumstances I cannot see that any
injustice has been done to the master, and as both parties have declared that
they will not produce any further witnesses, I will at once proceed to state the
opinion of the Court.
The "Beverley" was a screw steamship of 624 tons gross, and 474 tons net
register, and was fitted with two engines of 50-horse power combined. She was
built at Hepburn, in the county of Durham, in the year 1868, for and under the
superintendence of her owner, Mr. Edward Jordan Hough, of No. 12 St. Helen's
Place, Bishopsgate, in the city of London, that gentleman being at the time of
her loss the sole and managing owner of the vessel.
Mr. Hough, who has been examined before us, has told us that when the vessel was
originally built, she was only 450 tons gross measurement, and 290 net, but that
on her return from her first voyage, having learnt from the captain that she was
a stiff vessel, he caused a hurricane deck to be built over her, but with a hole
in it, so that the space covered might not be subject to tonnage dues. It was
found, however, that when the sea broke over her, the water found its way
through the hole, and accordingly he had the hole stopped up, but was then
obliged to have her re-measured for tonnage. He had, however, to remove her from
the Liverpool Underwriters' Association, in which she was then insured, as the
construction of the vessel was not in accordance with their rules. And
accordingly in the year 1872 he sold her to a person whose name is not before
us, leaving a portion of the money on mortgage, and was compelled, about two
years afterwards, owing to the purchase money not having been paid, to take her
back again in order to recoup himself.
It seems that the vessel, which had then only recently returned from Bilbao with
a cargo of iron ore, left Dunkirk on the 13th of February ultimo, bound to
Bilbao. She had a crew of 13 hands, all told, including the master, Captain
Matthew Smith Ford, who holds a certificate of competency as a master; a mate,
who has a certificate as mate only; and a second mate, or rather a boatswain
acting as second mate, and who holds a certificate as master. There were five
deck hands, a chief engineer, who holds a second-class certificate, a second
engineer without a certificate, and three firemen. We are told that she was well
and sufficiently equipped in all respects, but as to that I shall presently have
a few words to say.
On leaving Dunkirk she had about 11 tons of chicory, which was stowed in the
forward part of the vessel, one ton of pig iron, and about 100 tons of coal
distributed in the coal bunkers, in the afterhold, and in the between decks. She
had also a certain quantity of water ballast contained in two tanks, one of
which was quite on the stern of the ship, and held only about 10 tons of water;
the other was amidships, and had been, as the owner informed me, constructed to
hold 120 tons of water. It was 12 feet 6 inches long, 10 feet high, and the
whole width of the vessel about 28 feet. The midship tank was covered with
moveable iron plates, screwed down with nuts so as to contain the water when it
was being used as a ballast tank, but which could be removed when the ship was
laden, and then the tank served for the purposes of cargo. The after-bulkhead of
this tank was nearly amidships, or rather, as the owner has told us, at about
the centre of the ship's buoyancy, so that the whole of the weight of the water
in the midship tank would be forward of the centre of buoyancy. The aftertank
was full of water, and they were in course of filling the midship tank also, and
had got a little more than about half full, when the bottom of the cylinder of
the pump came out, and the pump thus became disabled.
It seems from the log book which has been brought in to-day, that this occurred
at 2.30 p.m. on February 11th; and although the vessel did not leave the harbour
until two days afterwards, no steps were taken either to repair the pump, or to
obtain anything which would supply its place, nor was any attempt made to fill
the midship tank. She accordingly left the port in this trim, drawing at the
time 3 feet forward, and 9 feet 6 aft.
The vessel had two compasses, a standard compass on the forward part of the
bridge, and a steering compass just forward of the steering wheel, which was
amidships. The master has told us that during the seven months he had been in
her he had generally found the standard compass to be pretty accurate, but
nothing seems to turn upon the compasses. During the early part of the voyage
the vessel seems to have met with tolerably good weather, and at noon of the
18th an observation was taken, which placed her, according to the master, in
latitude 45° 59' north; the longitude was considered to be 3?° 37' west, but
that was only ascertained by dead reckoning, for it seems they had no
chronometer on board. From that point she was steered a course south a quarter
west, the same course on which she had been for a considerable time before. At
daylight of the 19th they sighted the Spanish coast right ahead, distant some 25
to 30 miles, and the vessel was continued on the same course heading for the
land, when at about 10 a.m. a sudden squall came on, accompanied with rain which
obscured the sight of the land. It was the second mate's watch, and the captain,
who was at the time on deck, immediately ordered all sail to be taken in, and
himself went to the helm, whilst the second mate, with the two seamen who
constituted his watch, proceeded to take in the sails. From this time she was
steered a course south south-east, which was more to the eastward than she had
been before, until 4 p.m., when her head was laid north and by east off shore.
That course was continued until 2 a.m. of the 20th, when it was changed to
north-east by north, but at 6 o'clock a.m. she was put on a south-west by west
course, heading for the Spanish shore, until 10 o'clock, when her course was
again shaped north-east and by north. During all this time the wind was blowing
a gale from the north-west, and the vessel was so light forward that she could
not lay her course, but drifted bodily to leeward.
At 3 o'clock they had approached to within a short distance of the French coast,
and soundings having been taken and only 17 fathoms found, the captain, who had
previously ordered the bower anchors to be got ready, ordered the port anchor to
be let go. This brought her up, and she remained riding at single anchor from
that time till about 7 p.m., when the chain parted. Thereupon the starboard
anchor was immediately let go, which held her till about 8.30 p.m., when that
also parted. It being then impossible to beat off the shore the loose ends of
the cable were slipped, and the vessel's head was turned to the shore, and she
was beached at something like four or five miles north of the mouth of the River
Adour. It was a little after high water when she took the ground, but at 12
o'clock, when it was low water, the ship was high and dry, and all then left her
by means of a ladder placed over the bows; and a tent having been rigged up on
shore, several of the crew, including the master, passed the night there; but
the supercargo, the second mate, and some two or three of the men went inland to
a little village called Boucant.
On the 21st nothing whatever seems to have been done They seemed to have hung
about the ship, sometimes in the ship and sometimes on the beach; but on the
22nd the captain went to Bayonne to communicate with the Consul. On the 23rd or
24th the few tons of chicory were taken out of her, and all hope of saving the
ship having been abandoned, she was sold as she lay, and the master then
returned to this ocuntry, having previously discharged the crew. Such briefly
are the circumstances of the case.
At the conclusion-of the preliminary examination, Mr. Howard Smith, who appeared
for the Board of Trade, eharged the master with having contributed to the loss
of the vessel; first, by having proceeded to sea with insufficient hallast;
secondly, by having discharged the ballast tank before arriving at his port of
destination; thirdly, by not having let go both his anchors when he was in
danger of going upon the French coast; and, fourthly, he charged him with having
been both before and at the time of the stranding and loss of the ship, as well
as afterwards, drunk and incapable of performing his duties.
It will be convenient that I should consider these charges in the order in which
they have been made, the more so as they have been dealt with in this order by
Counsel on both sides.
And first, as to the condition of the vessel when she left Dunkirk. It was said
by Mr. Greenwell that the captain was not to blame for the state in which this
vessel was despatched from Dunkirk, and that if she was insufficiently bal asted
it was not his fault, for that he had no option but to put to sea, unless indeed
he had remained at Dunkirk until he could have had the pump repaired, but which
he did not think necessary. And with a view to justify the master's conduct in
proceeding to sea, Mr. Greenwell has produced the owner, who stated that looking
to the fact that the ship had on board so large a quantity of surplus coals, he
should, had he been there, not have hesitated to have sent the ship to sea as
she was. Now, although Mr. Hough, the owner, holds a certificate of competency
as master, we have no hesitation in saying that this ship ought not to have left
Dunkirk when she did, and in the state in which she was at the time. It seems
that she was 6 feet 6 inches by the stern drawing only 3 feet forward, and 9
feet 6 inches aft. The consequence was, that when, as might naturally have been
expected, on crossing the Bay of Biscay at that season of the year, she fell in
with a gale of wind, it was found impossible to keep her head to the wind. We
were quite unable to follow Mr. Hough, when he said that her head and bows being
well out of the water, she would be more likely to come up to the wind. We quite
understand that the deeper her stern was the better hold would the propellor
have had of the water; but what we think she wanted was not that her stern
should have been higher, but that her bows should have been lower, and if the
water tank had been filled with the full quantity of water that it would
contain, it would, even according to Mr. Hough's own admission, have brought the
bows down at least from 6 to 8 inches lower in the water. We think, then, that
the master was to blame for having left the port without having taken some
measures either to have the cylinder repaired, or to procure something to act in
its place, and at all events without having the midship tank filled with water.
Why, indeed, means were not taken for this purpose, this pump having given way,
as I have stated, on the 11th February, and the vessel not having left till the
13th, we are utterly at a loss to understand. We think that the master acted
very injudiciously in leaving the port with his vessel in the state in which she
was.
The next charge which has been brought against the master is, that before
reaching his port he discharged the water from the ballast tank. Mr. Greenwell
has stated that after the experience of the present voyage the master would
probably not discharge his ballast tanks in future, so soon as he had done on
this occasion. He was, according to his own showing, something like 18 or 19
hours from his port of destination, and yet he proceeded to discharge the water
from the midship ballast tank, thereby raising the bows of the vessel something
like from 6 to 8 inches further out of the water, and thus rendering her even
less capable of contending against an adverse wind than she had been before. And
this, too, without troubling himself to look at the barometer, which it seems he
had on board, and ascertain whether there was or was not any prospect of of bad
weather. It is quite true that, with the donkey pump disabled, the only mode of
emptying the tank would be by allowing the water from the tank to run out
through the after-hold into the engine room, and thence to pump it out by the
main engines, which could only have been done when the vessel was in motion. But
why it should have been pumped out so soon as it was, and why the master never
troubled himself to look at the barometer to see if he could count upon a
continuance of fine weather, we are quite at a loss to conceive.
The next question which we have to consider is, whether or not the captain, when
he found himself within a mile or three-quarters of a mile off the coast of
France, ought or ought not to have let go both his anchors instead of letting go
only one. Upon that point the Assessors have no doubt whatever; they think that
it was his duty, having both anchors ready, to have let them both go. With both
anchors down there would have been a better chance of his riding out the gale,
and we are unable to understand why it was not done, the more so as in the event
of it being necessary to slip from his anchors he had still a spare bower anchor
in the between decks which would have been available in case of need.
The last charge which is made against the master is one of drunkenness, and it
is a charge of a most serious character. The master indeed has admitted that
after the vessel had been run ashore, and during the three or four hours that he
remained on board, he did go to his cabin and there drink to excess. But the
charge against him is not only that he was unfit for duty and incapacitated by
drink after the vessel was beached, but that he was so at various times during
the voyage, and also before the vessel took the ground. Now if we are to believe
the evidence of the seaman Stainer, and no reason has been given why we are not
to believe him, the master was almost from the time of their leaving Dunkirk
more or less affected with drink, and consequently unfit for the discharge of
his duties. But Stainer's evidence does not stand alone, for he is confirmed in
many respects by some of the other witnesses. Thus John Smith, the second mate,
who holds a certificate of competency as a master, told us that when the master
came on board at Dunkirk, he seemed to have had something to drink, although, as
he said, "he wasn't what you may call drunk," and "was not incapable of doing
his duty."
The same witness said that on the 15th the master seemed to have been drinking,
he seemed so from his appearance; and again on the 19th, when the squall first
struck them, he couldn't say whether the master had or had not had anything to
drink; he wouldn't swear either one way or the other; and so also on the 20th,
the day on which the vessel was beached. It is impossible, looking at this
second mate's evidence, and remembering the very lax notions which seamen
generally have on the subject of drunkenness, not to see that in this witness's
opinion the master had been drinking more or less during the voyage, although he
would not admit that he was incapable of performing his duties. To show what
this witness's views on the subject are, he told us that when the master left
the vessel on the night on which she was stranded he was certainly the worse for
liquor, but was quite capable of giving orders, although it is clear that he was
then quite drunk. Then again Louis Grozner, an able seaman, could not tell
whether the master had or had not had any drink when he came on board at
Dunkirk, nor did he take that notice of him as to enable him to say whether
there was anything wrong with him during the voyage; all that he could say was
that he was not drunk, not even when they went ashore.
On the other hand we have had the evidence of the chief engineer, who distinctly
stated that when the captain left the ship he was not drunk but as the captain
has admitted that at that time he was, it is impossible to place much reliance
on this man's statement, the more so as the evidence is very strong that he was
himself the worse for liquor, and had been drinking with the captain on board.
Ole Jensen is another witness who speaks strongly in the captain's favour, and
who tells us that he never saw the captain drunk either before or after the
vessel was beached. He says that he was with the captain in his cabin packing
his clothes, and that he saw him up to half-past 11, shortly before he went on
shore, and that he was then quite sober; but this is in direct contradiction to
the evidence of all the witnesses, and even to the admission of the master
himself. We have also the evidence of Parkin, the second engineer, who says that
he never saw the master drunk, either before or after the stranding, although it
was sworn by some of the witnesses that it was this very man who had led the
master away from the stern of the ship, and took him up to the tent, when he was
incapable of taking care of himself.
To add to this we have a deposition from a Monsieur Auguste Lefer, a master
mariner who was on board the vessel at the time as supercargo. This deposition
appears to have been made before the British Consul, and although, as I have
already said, I should have been glad to have seen this gentleman as a witness,
it is impossible for me wholly to disregard his evidence, seeing that Mr.
Greenwell has declined to ask for an adjournment to enable him to produce this
person, who is now abroad. At the conclusion of his evidence Monsieur Lefer
says, "Je dois ajouter " que le capitaine avait un peu bu avant le naufrage, et
" qu'il était dans un état complet d'ivresse au moment " de l'enchorage et
après."
Nothing can be clearer than the evidence of this gentleman on the point that the
captain, before the ship had gone ashore, had been drinking, and that at the
moment of the shipwreck he was in a state of complete intoxication.
The evidence, then, in our opinion is conclusive that the master was
incapacitated from the efficient performance of his duties by drink, not only
after the vessel had been beached, but before she took the ground. We think,
too, that the evidence is very strong that the master was more or less affected
by drink from the time that he left Dunkirk, and especially on the 19th and 20th
of February when the vessel was contending with the gale. Indeed it is only on
the assumption that he did not know what he was doing, that we can explain his
conduct in keeping the vessel on a south south-east course for six hours after
the squall struck her, and thus getting her to leeward of his port, and down in
the bight between the French and Spanish coasts, when it ought to have been his
object, if he feared to enter Bilboa, to keep her out to sea and well to
windward of her port. For the master's conduct we can find no excuse whatever,
and, painful as it may be, we have no option but to cancel his certificate. If
hereafter in an inferior capacity he proves himself capable of exercising that
control over himself which is so essential to the position of a master, he may
possibly be able to recover his certificate; but at present we have no course
open to us but to cancel his certificate. In a recent case where the second
engineer had under somewhat similar circumstances gone into his berth and got
drunk, when the services of all were urgently required to save the ship and the
lives of those on board, I cancelled his certificate, and we see no reason why
the same course should not be followed in the case of a master, seeing the much
more important and responsible position which he holds, and the serious
consequences that might result from his misconduct.
I cannot conclude these remarks without observing that the owner is in our
opinion by no means free from blame in this case, not indeed for allowing the
ship to go to sea with the cylinder of the pump broken, and with the midship
ballast tank only half filled, for it seems that he knew nothing of this until
afterwards. But the owner has given his sanction to the master's proceedings,
and has told us that, had he been on the spot, he should, under the
circumstances, have sent her to sea, although at the time she was drawing only 3
feet forward, and 9 feet 6 aft. This vessel, it must be remembered, had but very
small power, and to allow her to go to sea 6 feet 6 inches by the stern, and
drawing only 3 feet forward, was, in our opinion, a most dangerous act, and one
which ought not be sanctioned or approved. But we blame also the owner for
allowing the vessel to go to sea without a chronometer, without which it would
be impossible for the master to ascertain with any degree of accuracy his
longitude; it must have been almost guesswork. We think; too, that this vessel
was not manned and officered as she should have been.
We shall not condemn the master in costs, but shall leave each party to pay his
own costs.
No charge having been made against the other officers, we shall return to them
their certificates. At the same time we cannot say that their conduct, and
especially that of the chief engineer, has been such as to merit our approval.
(Signed)H. C. ROTHERY,
Wreck Commissioner.
Finding.
The Court having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the
above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons stated in the annexed
judgment, that the loss of the said vessel was due, partly to her having been
sent to sea without being sufficiently ballasted, drawing only 3 feet forward
and 9 feet 6 inches aft, and partly to to the unskilful navigation of Matthew
Smith Ford, the master, more especially in emptying the ballast tank before
there was any necessity to do so, and in not dropping both anchors at once when
he found himself on a lee shore without the power of beating to windward.
The Court also finds that the said Matthew Smith Ford was incapable of the
efficient performance of his duties through drink at different times during the
voyage, as well before as after the vessel was beached.
It therefore orders his certificate to be cancelled.
The Court is also of opinion that there should be no costs of this
investigation.
Dated this 28th day of March 1877.
(Signed)H. C. ROTHERY,
Wreck Commissioner,
We concur in the above report.
(Signed)B. G. W. NICOLAS, Assessor.
"E. G. F. G. VISCONTI, Assessor.
(No. 53.)
W. 938.
