| Unique ID: | 14404 | | Description: | Board of Trade Wreck Report for 'Francis Drake', 1880 | | Creator: | Board of Trade | | Date: | 1880 | | Copyright: | Out of copyright | | Partner: | SCC Libraries | | Partner ID: | Unknown |
Transcription
(No. 659.)
"FRANCIS DRAKE."
The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.
IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Westminster on the 5th of July 1880, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain PARFITT and Captain ANDERSON, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the stranding and loss of the sailing ship "FRANCIS DRAKE," of London, near Agger, on the West Coast of Jutland, on the 21st of May 1880.
Report of Court.
The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed,-
1. That a proper course was not set and steered from noon of the 20th of May, taking into consideration the decreasing soundings, and the thick state of the weather.
2. That proper measures were not taken to ascertain the position of the vessel after sighting the Bovbierg Light at 10 p.m. of the 20th.
3. That the vessel was not navigated by the master with proper and seamanlike care and skill.
For these wrongful acts and defaults, the Court orders the master's certificate of Thomas Barter, the master of the said vessel, to be suspended for 12 months, but recommends that during the period of the suspension he be allowed a first mate's certificate.
Dated this 5th day of July 1880.
(Signed)
H. C. ROTHERY,
Wreck Commissioner.
We concur in the above report.
(Signed)
WM. PARFITT,
Assessors.
ABSM. ANDERSON,
Annex to the Report.
This case was heard at Westminster on the 5th of July instant, when Mr. McConnell appeared for the Board of Trade. The master and mate of the "Francis Drake" having been examined, Mr. McConnell stated that the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court upon the following questions:-
" 1. Whether a proper course was set and steered " after noon on the 20th of May, taking into considera- " tion the decreasing soundings and the state of the " weather?
" 2. Whether proper measures were taken to ascertain " the position of the vessel after sighting the Bovbierg " Light at 10 p.m. on the 20th of May?
" 3. Whether the vessel was navigated with proper " and seamanlike care and skill?"
Mr. McConnell further stated that "the Board of " Trade were of opinion that the certificates of the " master and mate should be dealt with."
The master and mate having been heard on their own behalf, and Mr. McConnell for the Board of Trade, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions on which its opinion had been asked. The circumstances of the case are as follows:-
The "Francis Drake" was a brigantine of 205 tons register, and belonged to the Port of London. She was built in Prince Edward's Island in the year 1863, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. Francis Drake Keslake, of Torquay, in the county of Devon, master mariner, and others. She left Trinidad on the 16th March last with a cargo of 316 tons of sugar, and a crew of 8 hands all told, bound to Falmouth for orders; and on her arrival at that place, received orders to proceed to Abo, in Finland. She left Falmouth on the 1st of May, and meeting with adverse winds had to anchor first off Dungeness, and again off Folkestone, when she sailed again on the 9th, and passed the North Hinder Lightship at about 4 p.m. of the 10th, distant three miles. From that time she had the wind ahead from north east to east; but on the 19th it came away from N.W., and at noon of that day an observation was obtained, which placed the vessel in 54° 4' north, longitude by chronometer being 6° 5' east. At noon of the 20th another observation was taken, which put the vessel in 55° 23' north, longitude by chronometer 7° 8' east, and consequently much further away to the east than she had been on the previous day, and a N.E. 1/2 N. course was then steered. At 10 p.m. the same day a light, which we are told was a very brilliant light, was observed bearing S.S.E.; the vessel was continued on her course N.E. 1/2 N., and in about an hour the light disappeared, bearing S.S.W.; and at midnight a cast of the lead was taken, which gave 15 fathoms of water. At 2 a.m. of the 21st another light was observed abeam, but the captain told us that he could not make out what it was; but he ordered the flying jib and middle staysail to be set, in addition to all plain sail, under which she was at the time, and endeavoured to go about, but missed stays. At 2.30 broken water was seen on the lee bow, the vessel being still on the same course N.E. 1/2 N., and another attempt was made to stay, which again failed, and a cast of the lead was taken, which gave only five fathoms. Five minutes afterwards the ship struck heavily, upon which her head paid off to the east before the wind and sea, and after striking several times she finally stranded on the beach. There was a heavy sea running at the time, but with the assistance of the people on shore, and by the help of the rocket apparatus, all the crew were safely landed. The place where the vessel struck was on the coast of Jutland, a little to the northward of the entrance to the Agger Channel. I should add that the crew of the vessel, being foreigners, proceeded after the accident to their own homes, and never came to this country at all; and the result is that we have had only the master and mate before us.
Now the first question on which our opinion has been asked is, "Whether a proper course was set and steered " after noon on the 20th of May, taking into considera- " tion the decreasing soundings and the state of the " weather." It seems that, according to the statement of the captain, the vessel was at noon of the 20th of May in 55° 23' north and about 7° 8' east. Now if we draw a line on the chart from that point in a N.E. 1/2 N. direction, which is the course that the master says he steered, it will be seen that it will take us very near to the place where the ship went ashore. It would take the vessel very close to the shore near the mouth of the Agger Channel, much closer than she had any right to go. It was therefore not a proper course; and having regard to the decreasing soundings, and the foggy state of the weather, the master ought to have gone about long before the vessel struck, and laid her head off the shore.
The second question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Whether proper measures were taken to " ascertain the position of the vessel after sighting the " Bovbierg Light at 10 p.m. on the 20th of May." So far as we can see, no measures at all were taken to ascertain the position of the vessel after making out the Bovbierg Light. The master indeed told us that, when he first saw it, he was in doubt whether it was the Bovbierg Light or the Hanstholm, which seems to be somewhat unaccountable, seeing that the two lights are nearly 40 miles apart, and that one of them is a fixed and the other a revolving light. He told us, however, that he ultimately came to the conclusion that it was the Bovbierg Light; but if so, the master must have known, had he consulted his chart, that, with the Bovbierg Light bearing S.S.W., as it was when he last saw it, the vessel must have been very close in to the land, and that his proper course was to get off it as quickly as he could. If he could not have stayed, he ought to have wore the ship, which, I am informed by the assessors, he could easily have done, as these vessels go round very readily. It is clear therefore to us that the master did not take any steps to ascertain the position of the vessel after he sighted the Bovbierg Light; for if he had done so, he would most certainly have put the vessel about some three hours before when he lost sight of the Bovbierg Light.
The third question is, "Whether the vessel was " navigated with proper and seamanlike care and skill." In our opinion she was not. With the Bovbierg Light bearing at first S.S.E., and when last seen S.S.W., it is clear that a N.E. 1/2 N. course must have taken her ashore. The way in which the master navigated the vessel, and the exhibition which he made of himself in giving his evidence, convince us that he is a person quite unfit to be entrusted with the command of such a vessel as this; and we should not be doing our duty unless we suspended his certificate for 12 months. At the same time we shall recommend to the Board of Trade that he receive a first mate's certificate; for, although unfit to be in command of a vessel of this description, he may possibly be quite competent to fill the subordinate position of a mate, not indeed on board a first class ship, but on board some vessel or other.
As regards the mate, he seems to have joined the vessel at Falmouth, owing to the illness of the mate, who had come with her from Trinidad; and although he has not shewn himself to be a person of any intelligence, he does not appear to have contributed by his conduct to this casualty. All the orders seem to have been given by the master, who was on deck, and the mate, who only came up at midnight, did merely what he was told to do; we cannot therefore deal with his certificate.
No costs were asked for by any person.
(Signed)
H. C. ROTHERY,
Wreck Commissioner.
We concur.
(Signed)
WM. PARFITT,
Assessors.
ABSM. ANDERSON,
L 367. 429. 200.-7/80. Wt. 47. E. & S.
|
