(No. 177.)
"GAUNTLET."
The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.
IN the matter of the formal investigation held at the Sheriff's Court, St.
George's Hall, Liverpool, on the 15th and 17th December 1877, before H. C.
ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain GRANT, R.N., and
Captain JONES, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the abandonment
and loss of the sailing ship "GAUNTLET," of Liverpool, whilst on a voyage from
Cardiff to Pernambuco, on the 22nd November 1877.
The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the
above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds as follows:-
Report.
The Commissioner.-On the 5th of November last the British barque "Gauntlet," of
Liverpool, left Cardiff bound to Pernambuco. She was a vessel of 367 tons, built
in 1869 in Prince Edward Island, and at the time of her loss Mr. Thomas William
Honey, of 48, Royston Street, Edge Hill, Liverpool, was the sole and managing
owner. Her cargo, which consisted of 549 tons of coals, had been recently taken
in at Cardiff, and her draught in the Cardiff Dock was 13 feet 11 forward and 14
feet 5 aft. She had a crew of 10 hands, consisting of a master, mate, boatswain,
steward, carpenter, and five able seamen. According to the evidence of the
master and crew she was well supplied with pumps, and was in every respect in a
good and excellent condition, with one exception, namely, her boats, of which
she had two, a lifeboat and a gig. It seems, however, that the gig, which had
been used a good deal in the harbour, was making water; and it was the master's
intention to set the carpenter to work to repair her whilst they were in the
Penarth Roads, where he was about to bring up, in order, as he expressed it, "to
get his gear in order."
The vessel left Cardiff, as I have stated, on the 5th of November, and brought
up in the Inner Penarth Roads, where she lay for several days, the wind being
adverse; and during that time the carpenter attempted to repair the gig, but it
seems not to have been very successful; and accordingly the master purchased a
new pinnace in her place. That the new pinnace was a good one is proved by the
fact that it was in that boat that the crew were ultimately saved.
On the 14th the vessel left the Inner Penarth Roads in charge of a pilot, and
got down as far as Nash Point, when the wind having become adverse she put back
and came to an anchor in the Outer Roads. There she lay till the 17th, when the
weather having moderated, and the wind being favourable, and the barometer
rising, she again set sail. At midnight, we are told, Lundy Island bore west and
by north, distant eight or nine miles. At that time the wind had shifted to the
south-west, and was blowing strong; and at daylight the wind was blowing strong
from the westward. During the 18th she had strong breezes, and at 8 p.m. of that
day Trevose Head was in sight, distant 17 miles, and from that point they took
their departure.
From that time forward they had strong gales from south-south-west to
north-north-west. And at 3 a.m. of the 21st the vessel was struck by a sea,
which made her tremble all over, carried away the lashings of the lifeboat, and
the battens and one of the tarpaulins on the main hatch. Up to this time we are
told that the ship had been making no water, or comparatively little water, for
in the harbour it had been found necessary to pump her out only once in the 24
hours, and at sea once in every four hours, and they could clear her by taking a
spell of 5 or 10 minutes. But from 3 a.m. of the 21st she began to make water,
and from that time the hands were continually at the pumps except when they were
employed in reefing sails, or putting the ship about.
At 5 a.m. the master determined to lay to under mizen staysail and main topsail,
and she thus continued until noon of the following day, the 22nd, when an
observation was taken, and she was found to be in 48° 23' north, and by dead
reckoning longitude 7° 2' west. The master accordingly determined to run back to
the English Channel for shelter, and with that view the hands were ordered aloft
to reef the foresail. Whilst they were engaged in doing this the vessel was
struck by a heavy sea on the port bow, carrying away some of the stanchions and
bulwarks, and starting the covering board. Shortly afterwards she was struck by
another sea, which did further damage to the port side, as well as carrying away
everything moveable on the deck, including the spare spars. At 1 o'clock, which
was the last time the pumps were tried, she was found to have from 3 feet 5
inches to 3 feet 6 inches of water in the hold. At about 10 or 20 minutes to 2
it was observed that the ship was rapidly filling with water, and accordingly
the master ordered the new pinnace to be put over the starboard quarter, that
being the leeward side of the ship. The boat was not dropped into the water, but
was hung in tackles. All hands were then called aft, and all came aft, except
the carpenter, who it seems was standing in the door of the forecastle getting
his tools together. Thevessel, however, was then rapidly filling, the water
being 2 inches up the combings of the main hatch. Accordingly the master ordered
the man-at-the-wheel to lash the wheel amidships, and having directed all the
men to get into the boat, he and the mate appear to have been the last to jump
into her. They then cut away the tackles, and she immediately drifted astern
clear of the vessel. Before they had got very far, perhaps five or six lengths
from the ship, it was observed that the carpenter was not in the boat, and
accordingly the master gave directions that the boat should be put about to
endeavour if possible to reach the ship again. In their endeavours to do so the
boat was twice nearly swamped, and it was found necessary to desist, and to put
the boat about and run before the wind. Previous to this an ensign or flag was
observed at the gaff end, which no doubt had been put up by the carpenter, for
it was not there when they left the ship. In a few minutes a squall came over
the ship, and when it again cleared off, in about 25 minutes after they had left
the vessel, she had disappeared. The boat continued to run before the wind all
that and the following day, and till noon of the 24th, when they succeeded in
landing on the French Coast at a place called Rotho?? about 22 miles from Brest.
From thence they were taken to St. Malo, and were ultimately landed at
Southampton.
Now in opening the case Mr. Tyndall stated that our attention would have to be
directed to the following questions: whether the ship when she left Cardiff was
in a good and seaworthy condition? whether her cargo had been properly stowed?
whether she was overladen? whether the master was justified in sailing on the
morning of the 17th? whether he took proper measures to discover and stop the
leak? and whether he was justified in abandoning her? Those are the questions to
which our attention has in the course of the present inquiry been directed.
At the termination of the evidence Mr. Tyndall stated that he had no charges to
make either against the master or against the owner. But this does not absolve
us from stating the conclusions to which the Court has come upon the evidence
before it, for if the Court should be of opinion that the master and the owner
in this case are free from any blame it would be its duty to say so. It would be
but a one-sided justice that the Court should express its opinion only when the
master and owner are in its opinion to blame, and not when they think that no
blame whatever attaches to them.
And first, I should state that the charges which have been made in this case
against the ship and her master seem to rest entirely upon the statements of two
of the seamen, Patrick Connor and John Donnelly, made before the Receiver of
Wreck. Patrick Connor stated that whilst the vessel was lying in Penarth Roads
she had 3 1/2 feet of water in her. He also stated that when they left the ship
all the crew, as soon as they found that the carpenter was not in the boat, were
most anxious to return, but that the master would not consent to it. John
Donnelly also stated that the crew were anxious to return to save the carpenter,
but that the master would not allow them to do so. Now both these men have been
examined before us this day, and they have both admitted that the statements
that they made before the Receiver of Wreck were untrue. The only excuse, if
excuse it can be called, which Patrick Connor offers for his conduct, is first
that he heard the carpenter say that there were 3 1/2 feet of water in the hold,
although he admits that it could not be so, as it was pumped out in 10 minutes.
Patrick Connor also states that he was drunk when he made the statement in
question, but we are not disposed to place much credit on this assertion, as the
receiver who took down the statement has the reputation of being a most careful
man, and the signature to his statement is certainly not that of a drunken man.
John Donnelly could give no reason for having made the statement he did. And
they both admitted that so far from the master having been unwilling to go back
to the ship, he did everything that it was in his power to do, but that it was
quite impossible to get back to her. I greatly regret that the Court has no
power to punish these men as they deserve.
As, however, these charges have been made, it may be well to inquire whether
there is any foundation for them. And first, as regards her seaworthiness. We
have had before us to-day Mr. Croft, the shipwright who repaired her in January
1876. and who has told us that on that occasion the old yellow metal was
stripped off; that the ship was caulked from gunwale to keel, and remetalled;
that a plank was taken out fore and aft for the purposes of reclassification;
that she had a new mainmast, and new windlass; that her keelson was refastened,
and that extra fastenings were put to her stem and stern posts. He said that she
was thoroughly overhauled by him, and that when she left his hands she was a
thoroughly good ship, and perfectly sound and fit to carry any cargo, and go
anywhere. We have also had the evidence of Mr. Wheeler, Lloyd's surveyor at
Liverpool, who told us that whilst she was undergoing repairs in 1876, he
surveyed her no less than 17 times; that her condition was at that time in every
respect good, and that she was a good little ship. From that time until her last
voyage she has made several voyages to the Mediterranean, Baltic, and elsewhere,
carrying cargoes which she has always, we are told, delivered in good condition.
After such evidence, and after the evidence of the captain and the officers, and
indeed of the men also, it is impossible for us to come to any other conclusion
than that she was in a good and seaworthy condition when she left the Port of
Cardiff.
The next question is, whether or not the cargo was properly stowed. Mr.
Burbridge, the coal foreman at Cardiff, has been examined before us to-day, and
has told us, as indeed the captain has already done, that she was full under the
main hatch, but that under her fore and after hatches there was a considerable
space empty, sufficient, as he said, to contain about 30 tons of coal. That, I
am informed, is quite a proper and usual mode of stowing coals, and there is,
therefore, nothing in this for which we can censure the master.
Thirdly. Was the vessel overladen? The registered tonnage of the vessel was 367
tons, and she had a cargo of 549 tons of coals, this would be just 50 per cent.
above her registered tonnage. Now I am told by the assessors that for sailing
vessels of her size and class 50 per cent. over the registered tonnage is usual
in the case of cargoes of coal. We cannot, therefore, say that she was
overladen, she was fully laden, but not in our opinion overladen.
As to whether the master was justified in sailing on the 17th there can be no
doubt. The weather was fine, the wind favourable, and the barometer rising, and
not only therefore was he justified, but he was bound, in the interests of his
owner, to put to sea.
As to whether he took proper measures to discover and stop the leak, we think
that he could not have done more than he did. To have lifted the hatches in such
weather as that would have been to court certain destruction to the vessel, and
to have made a hole through the cabin, as was suggested, would have been equally
dangerous.
Again, was he justified in abandoning the vessel as and when he did? On this
point I think that no one can entertain the smallest doubt, when it is
remembered that when the crew left her she was on the point of sinking, and that
the water was over her deck and 2 inches up the combings of the main hatchway.
The only question is whether the master did not delay his departure perhaps
somewhat too long, consistently with a due regard for the lives of his men? At
any rate he can hardly be accused of having left her too soon.
Lastly, and this is the only question that remains, is he guilty of the crime of
having wilfully or negligently abandoned the carpenter to his fate? As to that
we have not the smallest doubt. It seems that he called to him three times. The
boatswain, too, has told us that he spoke to the carpenter, who was collecting
his tools together, and asked him to come away, but that the carpenter replied
there was time enough yet, for that the vessel was not going to sink then. It
would have been wrong of the captain to have remained and thus risked the lives
of the rest of the crew till it should please the carpenter to collect his tools
and come aft. There is also no evidence that the master did not believe that the
carpenter was actually in the boat when he pushed off; and after he had
discovered that he was not there, it is conclusively proved that he made every
exertion to regain the ship; and the statements of the two witnesses, Connor and
Donnelly, made before the Receiver of Wreck, are now admitted by themselves to
be utterly false. To have persevered further in those efforts would have
endangered the lives of all who were in the boat.
We think then that this vessel was a good and serviceable vessel when she left
Cardiff, that the cargo was properly stowed and was not excessive, and that her
loss was due entirely to the extremely severe weather to which she was exposed.
We think also that no blame attaches to the master or to anyone on board for
having abandoned the vessel as they did, and for having left the carpenter on
board. We have, therefore, no hesitation in returning to the captain as well as
to the mate their certificates.
I think, Mr. Tyndall, after what we have said the master should be allowed his
expenses?
Mr. Tyndall.-I cannot say anything against that. I think it would be only fair
that he should have them Would the Court allow me to refer to a case before Mr.
Travis at Hull, where some witnesses had made statements which were found to be
utterly untrue, in the same way as the statements of Donnelly and Connor have
here been found to have been. There Mr. Travis said, in accordance with the
power given him by section 436 of the Merchant Shipping Act, he should order
those witnesses to pay a certain sum or to go to prison for 21 days.
The Commissioner.-Have I any such power? Mr. Travis is a stipendiary magistrate.
I should not like to exercise the power unless I was quite sure that I possessed
it.
Dated this 17th day of December 1877.
(Signed)H. C. ROTHERY,
Wreck Commissioner.
We concur in the above report.
(Signed)JOHN M. G. GRANT,Assessors.
"HENRY JONES,
W. 125. 60.-12/77. Wt. 3011.
