(No. 351.)
"HISPANIA," (S.S.)
The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.
IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Liverpool on the 7th and 8th of August 1879, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Rear-Admiral POWELL, C.B., R.N., and Captain WILSON, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the stranding of the steamship "HISPANIA," of Liverpool, on the Scarweather Sand, in the Bristol Channel, on the 17th of July 1879.
Report of Court.
The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, found, for the reasons stated in the annex hereto,-
1. That the stranding of the vessel was due to her having been kept heading E. 1/2 S. until she had passed the Scarweather Light-ship, and got close to the Scarweather Sand, due allowance not having been made for the strong ebb tide which was running at the time, and which caused her to make a N.E. course from off Ilfracombe.
2. That the master was not on deck after 6 a.m. of the 17th of July, when the safety of the vessel required his personal supervision, and that the orders given by him to the mate to keep her on her course close hauled to the wind were not proper orders.
3. That the course steered from 6 to 8 a.m. may have been a proper course, but that the vessel should at or about 8 a.m. have been put about.
4. That the master was not justified in leaving the deck in the sole charge of the boatswain, who holds no certificate, without giving him special instructions as to the course he was to follow. And that the mate, knowing, as he admits he did, that the vessel was drifting on the sand, and would, if the same course were continued, inevitably go ashore, was not justified in leaving the deck in charge of the boatswain, or in going below without giving the captain any warning of the danger in which the vessel was.
5. That there was no necessity whatever to use the lead, it being broad daylight, the weather clear, and the Scarweather Light-ship distinctly visible, so that there could be no doubt of the vessel's position.
6. That the vessel was not navigated with proper and seamanlike care.
7. That the master, mate, and boatswain are all of them responsible for this casualty.
For these wrongful acts and defaults the Court suspended the master's certificates both of competency and of service of William Henry Williams Dart, the master, for 6 months, and the master's certificate of competency of William Pritchard, the first mate of the "Hispania," for 3 months from the 8th instant; but recommended that they be allowed first mate's certificates during the respective periods of the suspension.
The Court made no order as to costs.
Dated the 18th day of August 1879.
(Signed)
H. C. ROTHERY,
Wreck Commissioner.
We concur in the above report.
(Signed)
R ASHIORE POWELL,
Assessors.
"
J. P. WILSON,
Annex to the Report.
This case was heard on the 7th and 8th days of August, when Mr. Tyndall appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Morris for the owners, and Mr. Goldney for the master of the "Hispania." Nine witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade, and examined, Mr. Tyndall asked the opinion of the Court upon the following questions:-
" 1. What was the cause of the stranding of the vessel?
" 2. Whether the master was on deck after 6 a.m. of " the 17th of July, at a time when the safety of the vessel " required his personal supervision? and whether the " instructions given about that time, and afterwards by " the master to the mate, were proper ones?
" 3. Whether proper courses were set and steered after " 6 a.m. of the 17th July, and whether proper allowance " was made for the tide?
" 4. Whether the master and mate were justified in " leaving the vessel in charge of the boatswain (who holds " no certificate)? and whether the boatswain was justified " in leaving the bridge?
" 5. Whether the lead was used, and if not, whether " its negiect was justifiable?
" 6. Whether the vessel was navigated with proper and " seamanlike care P
" 7. Whether the master, mate, and boatswain are, or " either of them is, in default?"
Mr. Tyndall also stated that in the opinion of the Board of Trade "the certificates of the master and mate should " be dealt with."
Mr. Goldney having been heard for the master, the mate in justification of his own conduct, and Mr. Tyndall in reply, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions that had been submitted for its consideration. The circumstances of the case are as follows :-
The "Hispania" is a vessel of 420 tons gross, and 263 tons net register, and is fitted with engines of 60 horsepower. She was built at Greenock in the year 1870, and at the time of the casualty was the property of Mr. John Ellis, of 4, Water Street, Liverpool, who is also the managing owner. The vessel left Liverpool for Bristol, between which places she trades regularly, at about 8 p.m. of the 15th of July last, having on board a crew of 16 hands all told, and a general cargo of about 450 tons, and being apparently in good condition and well found. And between 1 and 2 a.m. of the 17th she had arrived in the Bristol Channel, and was standing under steam and sail, close hauled on the port tack, heading about S. 1/2 E., the wind blowing half a gale from S.E. At 2 a.m. Lundy Island bore south distant about 8 miles, upon which the master ordered her to be put about, and she was laid on the starboard tack, heading E. 1/2 S. She was continued on that tack until about 4 a.m., when the master, who had in the meantime been in his cabin, came on deck again, and put her round on the port tack, heading S. 1/2 E. At 6 o'clock a.m. the master again came on deck; and the vessel, which was then within about 1 1/2 or 2 miles from the coast, near Ilfracombe, was again put upon the starboard tack, heading E. 1/2 S. The master then went into his cabin again, leaving orders with the mate, whose watch it was, to call him when they made the Scarweather Light-ship. I pass over for the present what were the reports made by the mate to the master, and when; as to which these two officers are directly at issue. Suffice it to say, that according to the mate the light-ship was sighted at about 7 o'clock, bearing N.E., distant about 7 miles; that at half-past 7 it was about 4 miles off, and from 3 to 4 points on the port bow; and that at 8 a.m. it was about 2 miles off, and was still on the port bow, though perhaps not quite so much as before. At about 7 to 10 minutes after 8 the boatswain came on deck, and the mate, having told him that the vessel's head was E. 1/2 S., and that he was to keep her close to the wind, went below to get his breakfast. The boatswain thereupon set the men belonging to his watch at work, and within 3 minutes after the mate had left the bridge, he himself, to use his own expression, went as far aft as he could go, and began to paint the rail, leaving the man at the wheel alone on the bridge. Soon afterwards the captain seems to have put his head out of his cabin and called out to take in the fore and aft sails. The boatswain, owing to his being aft, did not hear the order given, but on its being reported to him by a fireman, who happened to be on deck, he got his men together and proceeded to take in the sails. Having taken in the foresail, he went to the mainsail, when his attention was called by the man at the wheel to the mast of a wreck ahead. The boatswain replied "all right, we will luff up presently, and clear it." Having taken in the mainsail he then went aft to the mizen; but in the meantime the master had come on to the bridge, and had ordered the man at the wheel to port the helm a little, which was done. Shortly afterwards the master, according to his own account, observed the mast of the wreck some 150 to 200 yards ahead and on the starboard bow, and he at once ordered the helm to be put hard-a-port. According to the man at the wheel the master did not order the helm to be hard-a-ported until after he had looked aft, and seen the Scarweather Lightship on his starboard quarter; when, with an exclamation of surprise and alarm, he immediately gave the order. But however this may be, they were already too close to the sand to clear it, and the vessel in coming round touched the ground. An attempt was made to force her over the sand by keeping the engines going ahead, but she again struck, and as the tide was falling she remained fast. The place where she took the ground was on the western end of the Scarweather Sand. As the tide rose, the vessel floated, but it was then found that she had lost her rudder and rudder post; upon which a steam tug was engaged, and with her assistance she was got into Swansea, where the cargo was discharged. Having been there temporarily repaired, she was afterwards brought round to Liverpool, where we are told she now is undergoing repairs.
These are the undisputed facts of the case; and the first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "What was the cause of the stranding of the vessel?" It was contended by Mr. Goldney that, if the vessel after she was put about off Ilfracombe had been kept with her head E. 1/2 S., and not allowed to run off her course, it was quite impossible that she could have grounded where she did, on the Scarweather Sands. Let us see whether this is so or not. In the first place it must be remembered that it was high water off Ilfracombe that morning at about 4; moreover it was a spring tide, there being a new moon on the 19th; so that when at 6 a.m. the vessel was put on the starboard tack with her head E. 1/2 S., and until she took the ground, the ebb tide would be setting out with its greatest force. Now, we are told that the fairway course up and down the channel is about S.E. by E., the vessel therefore, when laying on an E. 1/2 S. course, would not be heading directly up channel, but crossing it diagonally, having the full strength of the ebb tide upon her starboard bow. And here I think that I cannot do better than quote a passage from the Sailing Directions for the West Coast of England, and to which I had occasion to refer in the last case that came before the Court, the "Zephyrus." At page 141 of that work it is said, speaking of the St. George's Channel, "When the main stream of the " tidal current coincides nearly with the general trend of " the channel, its effect upon a vessel making a mid- " channel fairway course would be experienced only in its " retarding or assisting the progress of the ship, but in " any deviation from the actual direction of this course, or " any departure from the mid-channel, other considerations " of great importance arise; because, instead of stemming " the tide the stream meets the ship on the bow, and " instead of being simply retarded in her course she is " drifted to starboard or port, as the case may be." Further on it says, "These diagonal courses necessarily " involve a departure from the fairway course of the " channel, and from the current of the main stream of " the tide; yet it has too often happened that a vessel so " steering has been considered as stemming the current, " whereas by receiving the adverse tide on the bow, she " has been sheered or drifted toward the one side or the " other of the channel." The above remarks, as I have said, refer to the tidal currents in the St. George's Channel, but they are equally applicable to the tidal currents in the Bristol Channel. We see then that a vessel crossing the channel diagonally from the south to the north shore against a strong ebb tide, would necessarily be set out of her course to the northward. To what extent she would be so set off her course must depend upon the strength of the tide, the speed of the vessel, and other circumstances; but seeing that it was a spring tide, and that the ebb was at its strongest, there can be little doubt that the deviation from the course on which the vessel was being steered would be considerable.
We are, however, left in no doubt in this case as to what was the extent of that deviation. On looking at a chart it will be seen that the Scarweather light-ship bears very nearly N.E. from Ilfracombe; when, therefore, at 6 a.m. the vessel was laid with her head E. 1/2 S., the light-ship, which would bear about N.E. from her, would be then about 4 points on her port bow. At 7, when the light-ship was first sighted, we are told that it bore N.E. from them, and therefore about 4 points on the port bow. Again, at half-past 7, it is said that it bore about 4 points on the port bow, and at 8 it was still on the port bow, but perhaps not quite so many points, the vessel's head being all the time E. 1/2 S. The fact, therefore, that from the time when she was put on the starboard tack off Ilfracombe, the light-ship maintained the same relative position, namely, bearing N.E., and about 4 points on the port bow, shows that, although the vessel's head may have been E. 1/2 S., the course made was N.E., or about 4 points from the direction in which she was heading. But such a course, it is obvious, would, if continued, take her, after she had passed the light-ship, directly on the sands. This then no doubt is the way in which the casualty occurred; the vessel. although laid with her head in an E. 1/2 S. direction, would be carried by the strong ebb tide setting on her starboard side in a N.E. direction ; and this, if continued beyond the light-ship, would inevitably land her on the Scarweather Sand.
This, then, being the way in which, in our opinion, the casualty occurred, the next question that we have to consider is, who is to blame for it? According to the master, the only report made to him by the mate of the position and bearing of the Scarweather light ship was at half-past 7, when he said that the mate told him that the vessel was heading E. 3/4 S., making a good E. 1/2 S. course, and that the Scarweather light-ship was "well" or " broad" on his port bow, distant about 8 miles. The master told us that by "well" or "broad," he supposed that she was 2 or 3 or 3 or 4 points on his bow. He also said that the mate came into the cabin at 8, when his watch was ended, but that he then made no report whatever about the light-ship, and that he (the master) did not ask him any questions about it. On the other hand, the mate told us that he went to the captain's cabin at 7 a.m., shortly after he had sighted the light-ship, and told him that it was on the port bow, distant about 7 miles; that he went again at half-past 7, and told him that the light-ship was about 4 miles on the port bow, and that the vessel was making a good east course, and that he went at 8 o'clock and told him that the light-vessel was about two miles from the port bow, and that the ship was making a good east course. He also said that the master on each occasion remarked, "All right; keep her close up." There is, then, apparently a direct contradiction between these two gentlemen, and the question which we have to consider is, whether it is possible to reconcile their evidence, without imputing wilful and deliberate perjury either to the one or to the other, which the Court would be always most unwilling to do. Now we were told by the fireman, Lind, that a few minutes after 7 he saw the chief mate go to the captain's cabin, and put his head in, and heard him tell the master that the light-ship was 7 or 8 miles away to leeward. He said he heard the master's voice, but could not make out what he said. We have thus a direct confirmation of the mate's statement that he went to the master's cabin shortly after 7, and told him that the Scarweather light-ship was some 7 or 8 miles away on the port bow. But the case does not rest here. It will be seen on reference to a chart that the distance from Ilfracombe to the Scarweather light-ship is about 16 miles, and as we are told that she was about 2 miles from the coast when she was put about, that would give her 14 miles to run in a N.E. direction to fetch the light-ship. We are also told that she was making about 7 knots an hour headway, so that at 7 a.m., when the light-ship was first sighted, she would be about 7 or 8 miles from it. Now the master and mate and Lind all say that one of the reports made by the mate to the master, was that the light-ship was from 7 to 8 miles distant; this, however, she was at 7, and not at half-past 7. It appears to us, therefore, to be tolerably clear that the report of which the master speaks, that the vessel was some 7 or 8 miles off, must have been made to him at 7, as sworn to by the mate and Lind, and when the light-ship was at about that distance off, and not at half-past 7, when it is obvious that she must have been much nearer to the light-ship than 7 or 8 miles, seeing that she grounded on the Scarweather Sand, which is some 2 to 3 miles further than the light-ship, at 35 minutes after 8. It is clear that at half-past 7 she must have been, as the mate has stated, within 4 miles of the light-ship, in order that by 35 minutes after 8 she should have been stranded on the Scarweather. Whilst, then, we are clearly of opinion that the report of the mate that the vessel was 7 or 8 miles from the light-ship must have been made at 7, and not as the master has stated at half-past 7, we are not disposed to think that the master, in saying that it was made at half-past 7, stated that which he knew to be untrue. What probably occurred was this: the master heard the report made to him by the mate at 7 that the light ship was some 7 or 8 miles off, but when the report that the light-ship was 4 miles off was made at half-past 7, he was probably dozing, as the mate has said. This appears to be the explanation of the apparent contradiction between these two men.
Now even admitting this to be so, what excuse has the master to offer for allowing this vessel to go ashore as she did? In our opinion, none whatever. He knew, or ought to have known, when he put the vessel on the starboard tack off Ilfracombe, that it was a spring tide, and that it was ebbing fast, and consequently, although he might lay her head in an E. 1/2 S. direction, that would not be the course she would make. He knew, or ought to have known, that when she was put about at 6 a.m., the Scarweather light-ship bore N.E. from him, and about 4 points on his port bow; that when the mate reported to him that the light-ship bore well or broad on the port bow, by which he understood it to be 2 to 3 or 3 to 4 points on the port how, the vessel was keeping the light-ship on the same bearing, and was therefore making a N.E. course. He knew, or ought to have known, that the distance from Ilfracombe to the Scarweather light-ship was only 16 miles; and that therefore when he put the vessel about, he would be only 14 miles from the light-ship; and as he was making 7 knots an hour headway, she would at 7 a.m. be within about 7 miles of the light-ship. He knew, or ought to have known, that at 8 o'clock he would, at the same rate of speed, and on the same course, be abreast or nearly abreast of the light-ship, beyond which it was obviously unsafe for him to go; and that if the same course was continued, the vessel would inevitably go upon the Scarweather. Knowing all this, when the mate comes into the cabin a few minutes after 8, at the termination of his watch, he yet, by his own admission, never asks him the position of the light-ship, but allows the vessel to be continued on the same course, and remains below preparing his tea, although he is well aware that the deck is in charge of a totally incompetent officer, the boatswain, and does not come up until nearly half-past 8, by which time the vessel is so close to the sands, that it is impossible to clear them. In our opinion this master has greatly contributed to this casualty by continuing the vessel, or allowing her to be continued, on a course which he knew, or ought to have known, would take her on the sands.
Whilst, however, the master has in our opinion been guilty of a very grave dereliction of duty, it does not in our opinion relieve the mate from his share of responsibility. He was in charge of the deck from 4 to 8 a.m. that day, and, as Mr. Goldney has observed, it was his duty to observe, and he did observe, the way the vessel was going. From the observations which he made of the vessel's position at 7, at half-past 7, and at 8, he knew, or ought to have known, for he is a certificated master mariner, that the course which the vessel was making was N.E., and that that course would inevitably land her, as it did, on the Scarweather Sands. Indeed he admitted to us that he was well aware, when he left the deck at 8 o'clock, that the course on which the vessel was would, if continued, take her on the sands. He admits that he did not tell the captain so, and that he did not give him any warning of the danger in which the vessel was, although he says that he knew she was in danger when he left the deck, and that, if it had rested with him, he would have altered the vessel's course at 8 and even at half-past 7. This man had had some words with the master that morning; it seems that when he came on deck at 4 a.m., the master complained that some work had not been done, and he accordingly told the mate that he should get rid of him on their arrival at Bristol. It was this circumstance, no doubt, that created an ill feeling in this man's mind, and made him altogether indifferent about the master and ship getting into difficulties. And here I ought to observe that according to the mate's evidence they were 2 miles from the light ship at 8 o'clock, when he went off watch; but this is directly denied by the other witnesses, who told us that at that time they were nearly abreast of the light-ship. And indeed it must have been so, for if between 6 and 7 a.m. she had got 7 miles nearer the light-ship, and between 7 and half-past between 3 and 4 miles more, it is obvious that by 10 minutes after 8, when he left the deck, she must have been nearer than 2 miles from it, and probably abreast of it, if not past the light. ship. Unless, too, she had been there at that time, she never could have grounded on the sand by 35 minutes after 8.
Now had the mate, when he went off duty, told the master that they were abreast of the Scarweather, as they undoubtedly were, it is obvious that his apprehensions would have been excited, and that he would not have allowed the vessel to continue on her course, as he did. Instead of that, according to his own account, he tells the master that they are still 2 miles from the light-ship; according to the master, he tells him nothing at all. This man leaves the deck and goes below, knowing, as he says, that the vessel was in danger, and that she was drifting on Scarweather Sands, and that there she must inevitably go if the course was continued.
It remains for me to say a few words as to the conduct of the boatswain. This man, when he took charge of the deck, was told by the mate that she was heading E. 1/2 S., and yet he does not look at the compass to see whether the man was steering a right course or not. Within three minutes of his having relieved the mate, he goes aft, as far aft as he can, to paint. He sees that the vessel has got inside the Scarweather light-ship, yet so ignorant is he that he is not aware that it is attended with danger. His attention is called by the man at the wheel to the mast of the wreck ahead, but he keeps the vessel on her course, saying that they will clear it presently, although it must have been obvious to any seaman that it was the mast of some vessel which had been previously wrecked there.
The conclusion, then, to which we have come, is that the master's certificate should be suspended for 6 months. As regards the chief mate, my own opinion is, that his offence is of a graver and more serious character than that of the master, the master's was an act of omission, his an act of commission. Captain Wilson, however, one of the Assessors, thought that, although according to his own admission he knew that the vessel would, if the course was continued, inevitably run ashore, he was to a certain extent relieved from the necessity of taking any steps to save her, or even to warn the master of the danger, by the fact that he went off duty at 8 o'clock. In that opinion neither Admiral Powell nor I concur; but under the circumstances we have only suspended his certificate for 3 months. The boatswain holds no certificate, and this Court has therefore no power to punish him.
Mr. Goldney applied that the master might be allowed a first mate's certificate during the period of the suspension of his master's. certificate. Mr. Tyndall objected. The Court, however, in accordance with its invariable practice, agreed to recommend to the Board of Trade that he be allowed a first mate's certificate, considering that it was better that he should be employed at sea, although in an inferior capacity, in the study and practice of a seaman's duties, rather than that he should be detained on shore doing and learning nothing.
Mr. Goldney also asked that the master's certificate of service should be returned to him; but this the Court refused, as it would have enabled the master to present himself with his certificate of service before some ship owner, and obtain the command of a vessel, his certificate of competency being at the same time under suspension. Both his certificates were therefore suspended.
The mate also on his own behalf, asked for a first mate's certificate during the suspension of his master's certificate, and to which the Court assented.
No order was made as to costs.
(Signed)
H. C. ROTHERY,
Wreck Commissioner.
We concur.
(Signed)
R. ASHMORE POWELL,
Assessors.
"
J. P. WILSON,
(No. 451.)
L 367. 119. 70.-8/79. Wt. 47. E. & S.
