(No. 335.)
"ENTERPRISE."
The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1878.
IN the matter of the formal investigation held at Westminster on the 15th and
16th days of November 1878, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner,
assisted by Captain H. D. GRANT, R.N., C.B., and Captain BEASLEY, as Assessors,
into the circumstances attending the stranding of the British sailing ship
"ENTERPRISE," of Liverpool, on Hope Point, near Kingsdown, on the 26th of
October last, whilst on a voyage from London to Cardiff.
The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances attending the
above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed: (1.) That
when the "Enterprise" left London for Cardiff she was sufficiently manned for
the voyage, having regard to the fact that it was intended that she should be
towed the whole way.
(2.) That the attempt to proceed from the Downs to Dungeness was not, in the
then circumstances of the wind and weather, unjustifiable.
(3.) That the master of the "Scotia" did obey the signals which he received from
the "Enterprise," with a view to turn her head round, and did use proper means
for that purpose, although it would probably have been advisable, when he found
that his ship's head would not come round, if he had set some head sails on the
tug.
(4.) That the master of the "Enterprise," when the towing gear gave way, took
all proper measures to prevent the vessel from stranding, saving that he ought
to have ordered the tow rope to be cut away, and when the chain of the port
anchor got jammed should have been forward ready to order the starboard bower
anchor to be at once let go.
(5.) That the stranding of the "Enterprise" was not under the circumstances
unjustifiable.
(6.) That neither the master of the "Enterprise," nor the master of the
"Scotia," was in any way to blame for the casualty, except to the extent above
mentioned.
The Court accordingly orders the certificates of George Lewis, the master of the
"Enterprise," and of William Thomas Twiss Turner, the master of the "Scotia," to
be returned to them.
The Court makes no order as to costs.
Dated this 16th day of November 1878.
(Signed)H. C. ROTHERY,
Wreck Commissioner.
We concur in the above report.
(Signed)HENRY D. GRANT,
Captain R.N.,Assessors.
"THOS. BEASLEY,
Reasons.
The Commissioner.—The "Enterprise," which is a fullrigged ship belonging to the
Port of Liverpool, of 1,494 tons gross and 1,460 tons net register, was built at
Quebec in the year 1875, and at the time of the casualty which forms the subject
of the present inquiry she was the property of the Arvon Shipping Company,
Limited, Mr. John Thomas, of Bangor Street, Carnarvon, being the managing owner.
At noon of the £5th of September last she left the South-West India Docks in tow
of a steam tug called the "Scotia," bound to Cardiff in ballast, and having a
crew of 17 hands all told, mostly runners. She had 595 tons of ballast on board,
and drew 12 feet 7 forward and 12 feet 8 aft. She was nearly a new ship, having
been built in the year 1875; was well found in every respect, and had four
boats, a lifeboat, as some of the witnesses have called it, or more properly
speaking a whale boat, two gigs, and a very large boat, which is said to be
capable of holding 50 men.
The "Scotia," which had been engaged to tow the "Enterprise" to Cardiff is a
vessel, which although of only 40 tons register, had a gross tonnage of 230 or
260 tons. She had engines of 130 horse-power, and was, we are told, with one
exception, the most powerful tug in the River Thames. She had 11 hands ou board,
two more than her regular complement, it being the practice to take two extra
hands in the event of what the master called a long tow, the tug having been
engaged, as I have said, to tow the "Enterprise" round the whole way to Cardiff.
The tow rope by which the "Enterprise" was being towed was a 14-inch hawser,
having a bend at the end, which was passed over a hook connected by a chain and
swivel some 3 feet long to what is called a tow bar, which comes up from the
vessel's keelson between the boilers and through the deck.
On leaving the docks there were about 30 fathoms of tow line out, but in going
down Sea Reach the captain of the "Scotia" took the opportunity whilst they were
paying out more tow line to ask whether the "Enterprise" intended to bring up in
the Downs. The captain of the "Enterprise" replied that they would see what the
weather was when they got there. They then proceeded on their voyage, and at
midnight passed the Gull Stream Lightship, the weather at the time being clear,
but the wind fresh and the sky beginning to be overcast. We are told that at
this time the master's barometer showed 28.80, but that as it was graduated to
about 4/10ths below the standard, it would represent a height of about 29.20,
which is a low barometer.
Between 1 and 2 a.m. they passed the Downs, and in going through the steam tug
eased and asked whether it was the intention of the "Enterprise" to anchor, but
the master replied, "No, that they would try and get on as far as Dungeness, and
if the weather was then bad they would anchor there." At 2 a.m. the South Sand
Head Light bore S.E. by E. 1/2 E., the South Foreland Light at the same time
bearing W. 1/2 S., which shows us the exact position of the vessel at that time,
a matter, as will be seen, of some importance. At this time the wind was blowing
fresh from W. S. W., and the vessel was heading about S.W. and by W., very
nearly head to wind. At 2.30 the wind had increased considerably with squalls,
and by three it was blowing a gale from S.W. and by S., the wind having come
round more to the southward. The master thereupon signalled to the steam tug to
put about for the purpose of running back to the Downs. Whether the signals
which were made to the "Scotia" were obeyed is a point on which we have had a
great conflict of testimony, us to which I shall presently have a good deal to
say. But however this may be, at four, or between that and half-past four, the
"Enterprise" at the time lying broadside to the sea with her head to the
westward and pointing inshore, one of the links of the chain which held the tow
rope parted, and the "Enterprise" then went adrift, and having the whole length
of the tow line with the swivel and the remainder of the chain attached to it
hanging from her bows. As soon as the master of the "Enterprise" perceived that
his vessel was adrift and was driving before the gale up channel, with her head
towards the shore, he ordered the foretopmast staysail to be set and the upper
fore topsail to be loosened for the purpose of bringing the ship's head round to
run for the Downs, but they were immediately blown to ribbons. Seeing this, the
master then ordered the anchor to be let go, but we have been told that when
seven fathoms of the cable had been paid out, the chain became jammed. After
clearing it they paid out some more chain, but the 15 fathoms shackle got jammed
again. In the meantime the vessel had taken the ground, having, as was
afterwards found, run on to the coast at a place called Hope Point, between St.
Margaret's Bay and Hope Bay.
At daylight, the master, finding that the crew were anxious to go ashore, and
that there was no assistance at hand, ordered the whale boat and one of the gigs
to be put over the side. This was done by about 7 a.m., and soon afterwards a
small boat from the shore with two hands in her came alongside, and the men
having come on board on the lee side of the ship where the water was
comparatively smooth, they endeavoured to persuade the captain to go on shore,
but this he refused to do, and they thereupon left, taking with them a line for
the purpose of establishing a communication with the shore. When the boat had
left the crew appear to have become more than ever anxious to get on shore,
probably owing to the fact that the vessel having grounded at low water she was
being driven up as the tide rose, the anchor having failed to hold, owing, as it
subsequently turned out, to the fluke giving way, and no doubt she bumped
heavily on the beach. The master endeavoured to persuade them to remain on board
the ship, telling them that he was sure the vessel would hold together that
tide, but they insisted upon leaving her, and nine of them having got into the
whale boat the chief officer directed the second mate to get into her and take
charge. No sooner had he done so, and before he could get hold of the line which
the small boat had taken ashore, than the painters fore and aft were cut, and
the boat went adrift. As soon as she had got out of the shelter of the vessel
and amongst the breakers she capsized, and all the men were thrown into the
water; four of them were unfortunately drowned, but the other six, with the
assistance of the beachman succeeded in reaching the shore. Soon afterwards the
rocket apparatus was brought down, and a line having been thrown across the
ship, the remainder of the crew, seven in number, were brought safely to land.
As the tide receded the vessel was left high and dry at low water; but we have
been told that she was subsequently got off, although very seriously damaged,
and has since been brought up to London.
The steam tug, which after the slipping of the hawser had been unable, owing to
the violence of the gale, to pass another hawser, or even a line to her, had
been lying off, unable to get near her. She seems to have made one attempt to do
so, and had backed down to within a quarter of a mile of her, when finding that
the water had shoaled to three fathoms, her own depth aft being 10 feet 3, she
was obliged to desist. At 9 o'clock, perceiving that the ship had been abandoned
by the whole of the crew, she steamed away towards Deal. Such are the facts, the
undisputed facts, in the case.
Now the Board of Trade have asked for the opinion of the Court upon the
following questions:—
(1.) Whether the "Enterprise" when she left London for Cardiff was sufficiently
manned for the voyage?
(2.) Whether the master of the "Enterprise" was justified in attempting to
proceed from the Downs to Dungeness?
(3.) Whether, when the "Scotia" was signalled to turn the head of the
"Enterprise," the master obeyed the signals and used proper endeavours to turn
the head of the "Enterprise" round?
(4.) Whether, when the towing gear gave way, the master of the "Enterprise" used
proper endeavours to prevent the "Enterprise" from stranding?
(5.) Whether the stranding of the "Enterprise" was justifiable?
(6.) Whether either the master of the "Enterprise" or the master of the "Scotia"
is to blame for the casualty?
And (7.) The Board of Trade state that in their opinion the certificates of the
master of the "Enterprise" and of the master of the "Scotia" should be dealt
with?
I will proceed to deal with these questions in the order in which they have been
laid before us.
As regards the first point on which our opinion is asked, namely, whether the"
Enterprise" when she left London for Cardiff was sufficiently manned for the
voyage, I am advised by my assessors that in their opinion she was. This vessel
we are told when fully manned had a crew of 24 hands all told. She was to be
towed from London to Cardiff, during which time the same number of hands would
not be required. All the 17 hands too were runners, that is to say, all able
seamen, whereas her complement of 24 men would include boys as well as seamen.
We think, therefore, that the vessel with 17 hands was sufficiently manned for
the voyage on which she was engaged, even considering the time of the year.
The second question upon which our opinion is asked is, whether the master of
the "Enterprise" was justified in attempting to proceed from the Downs to
Dungeness? We have some difficulty in expressing any very decided opinion upon
this point. That the master committed an error in going on from the Downs
towards Dungeness we have no doubt. He was in good and safe anchorage ground,
the barometer was low, and the weather to a certain extent threatening. On the
other hand, we are hardly disposed to say that he was not justified in going on
towards Dungeness. It is the duty of captains in command of these large vessels
to push on whenever a favourable opportunity occurs, and unless the weather had
become much more violent than it was when they passed through the Downs, there
can be no doubt that this vessel would have gone in perfect safety as far as
Dungeness, if not further. The master, too, no doubt felt that he had always the
Downs under his lee to which he could run back. On the whole, although we think
it would have been better under the circumstances if the master had brought up
in the Downs, we cannot say that he was not justified in attempting to proceed
as far as Dungeness.
The third question is a very important question, and it is, whether when the
"Scotia" was signalled to turn the bead of the "Enterprise" the master obeyed
the signals, and used proper endeavours to turn her head round? We were told by
the master and crew of the "Enterprise" that they were a considerable time
before they could attract the notice of those on board the "Scotia," and that
when they did do so she paid no attention whatever to their signals. Those
signals were the waving of a lamp or lamps, to indicate to her that it was their
wish to go about and to run for the Downs. At first there was some doubt upon
the evidence whether the "Scotia" had been signalled to turn her head out to
seaward or to the west towards the land, but I think it was made quite clear in
the end that the order was that the "Scotia" should turn her head to the west
inshore. The master, too, said that the port light was taken out and waved, and
we are told that the waving of the port light would be to show that the port
helm was to be used, and so indeed the "Scotia's" people understood it. The
people on board the "Enterprise," however, say that the "Scotia" paid no
attention to their signals, and that they did nothing at all.
Let us now see what the "Scotia's" people say on the subject. They tell us that,
understanding from the signals on board the "Enterprise" that they wished the
vessel's head to be turned to the westward and inshore, the helm of the "Scotia"
was put hard-a-port, and that their vessel paid off two points, when a heavy
squall struck them, which drove the "Enterprise" astern, dragging the steam tug
after her. Now the effect of the "Enterprise" drifting to leeward whilst she was
still attached by a rope to the stern of the tug would be to prevent the port
helm of the tug from taking effect, and not only prevent the tug coming round,
but by hanging to her stern, tend to bring the tug's head up into the wind. It
was denied by those on board the "Enterprise" that they had been drifting, or
had dragged the steam tug after them; on the contrary, they say that until the
hawser was slipped, the steam tug had always been able to hold them, and even to
make a knot to a knot and a half of headway.
Now if the statement of the "Scotia's" people be correct, that such was the
violence of the gale that previous to the chain parting they were only able to
hold the ship's head to wind, and were quite unable to make any way down
channel, it is obvious that as soon as the "Scotia's" helm was put hard-a-port
to bring her round, and her head was angling in towards the shore, the strain on
the tow rope being taken off, there would be nothing to prevent the "Enterprise"
from drifting to leeward, and thus dragging the "Scotia" after her. Of course
this would depend entirely on the violence of the gale. Let us see then what
progress they had been making down channel before the chain parted. We were told
by the "Enterprise's" people that at 2 a.m. the South Sand Head Light bore S.E.
by E. 1/2 E., the South Foreland Light bearing W. 1/2 S. This would give us her
position at that hour, and would place her rather further down the channel than
where she grounded. Now we are told that there was only an interval of about 20
minutes between the time of the parting of the chain and her taking the ground;
we must, therefore, hold that during those 20 minutes she had driven further up
the channel than the steam tug had been able to take her down channel after 2
a.m.; a pretty conclusive proof that during the two hours or so that she was in
tow of the steam tug after 2 a.m., and before the hawser parted, she could have
been making very little if any way. It is also to be observed that when she took
the ground it was dead low water, so that there would then have been no tide
either way, and her progress up channel would consequently be due entirely to
the force of the gale from the southward and westward, and not at all to the
tide, whereas previous thereto, and whilst in tow of the steam tug, she would
have had the ebb tide with her, setting her down channel, an additional proof of
the little way they were making against the gale. I think, therefore, that we
are bound to hold that, when the order was given to go about, they could have
been making little or no way down channel, and it goes far to confirm the
statement of the "Scotia's" people that as soon as the steam tug's helm was
ported, and her head turned towards the shore, the strain being taken off the
tow rope, the "Enterprise" would drive up before the gale, and by hanging on her
stern prevent the steam tug getting her head round.
The master of the steam tug was asked why he had not set any head sails to help
his ship's head round. He answered that he had not thought of it, and that if he
had lie might have done so. It is well known that these steam tugs seldom use
their sails; they rely much more upon the powerful engines with which they are
furnished. No doubt if he had thought of it, it might have helped to take the
vessel's head round, but the omission to do so can hardly in our opinion be
regarded as a very serious offence. On the whole, we think that the master of
the "Scotia" cannot be held to blame for this casualty; we think that when he
was signalled, or at any rate as soon as he observed the signals from the
"Enterprise," he did obey them, and did make every effort to get the head of the
"Enterprise round, and except in regard to that small matter of not setting any
head sails, he seems to us to have been in no way to blame.
It came out in the course of the inquiry that the people on board the
"Enterprise" were under the impression that the tow rope had been purposely cast
adrift from the "Scotia," and this no doubt explains the strong feeling of
animosity which they evidently entertained towards her people, and which led
them to think that not only had they made no effort to get the vessel's head
round, but that they had purposely cast them adrift, and left them to their
fate; but there is not the slightest ground for any such charge.
The fourth question upon which our opinion is asked is, whether, when the towing
gear gave way, the master of the "Enterprise" used proper endeavours to prevent
the "Enterprise" from stranding? As soon as the master found that his vessel was
adrift, he endeavoured to set some head sails to bring her round, and in doing
so he took, in our opinion, the right course. When those head sails were blown
to ribbons, he then gave orders for the anchor to be let go; and we think that
it would have been better, if the master, knowing that he had only his anchor to
rely upon had then gone forward and seen that it was let go. Had he been forward
he would have seen that, when only seven fathoms were paid out, the chain got
jammed, and in that case he might at once have ordered the starboard anchor to
be let go. No doubt he trusted to the chief mate to see that his orders were
carred out; and it is to be regretted that, when the chain got jammed the chief
mate did not take it upon himself to order the starboard anchor to be let go.
There is one other matter in which we think that the master is somewhat to
blame, and which may possibly in some degree have contributed to bring about
this casualty. He knew, or ought to have known, that the tow rope was hanging
over the bows. Something, I think, was said by one of the witnesses about not
wishing to cut away a good hawser. Now if what was hanging over the ship's bows
was, as the officers seemed to say, only a small portion of it, there would have
been no very great loss in cutting it away. If, on the other hand, it was the
whole length of the tow rope, as it proved to be, and as they probably thought
at the time, seeing that they believed it to have been slipped from on board the
tug, then it was the more important that it should be cut away, because so long
as that hawser was lying out from the port bow it would prevent her head from
paying off.
We think, therefore, that the master of the "Enterprise" is somewhat to blame,
not only for not having ordered the tow rope to be cut away, but for not having
gone forward to see that the anchors were let go. At the same time we must
remember that a very short time elapsed between this vessel getting adrift and
her going aground, according to the evidence not more than 20 minutes. Some part
of that time must have been occupied in setting the two head sails; and the
confusion and excitement caused by their blowing away might perhaps not
unreasonably account for the master's forgetfulness. But whether that be so or
not, we think that the blame that attaches to him in regard to those two slight
matters would not justify us in dealing with this gentleman's certificate, and
we shall therfore return it to him.
As to the master of the "Scotia," there is nothing in his conduct which would
justify us in dealing with his certificate, and it will therefore be returned to
him. (To Mr. Mackenzie.) I presume you have no application to make for costs.
Mr. Mackenzie.—No, sir, I am not so instructed.
The Commissioner.—Although the certificates of these officers have been returned
to them, we think that it was a very proper case for inquiry. Where a large and
valuable vessel has gone ashore, and four lives have been lost under the
circumstances which have been stated, it is right that those circumstances
should be fully inquired into.
(Signed)H. C. ROTHERY,
Wreck Commissioner.
We concur.
(Signed)HENRY D. GRANT,
Captain R.N.,Assessors.
"THOS. BEASLEY,
I 101. 87. 70.—11/78. Wt. B 612. E. & S.
