Wreck Report for 'Araby Maid', 1880

(No. 842.)

"ARABY MAID."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Westminster on the 14th and 15th of December 1880, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain HIGHT and Captain BEASLEY, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the stranding of the sailing ship "ARABY MAID," of Leith, near Kingsdown Coastguard Station, on the 18th of November 1880, whereby one life was lost.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed,-

1. That the stranding of the "Araby Maid" was due partly to her having been forced inshore by the position of the "Loch Fyne," partly to her anchor having, by a mistake of the second mate, been dropped just after they had cleared the "Loch Fyne's" stern.

2. That the master of the "Araby Maid" was justified in attempting to proceed to sea on the afternoon of the 18th of November.

3. That the master of the "Araby Maid" was justified in getting under weigh, under the circumstances of the weather and tide, with only her lower topsails and fore and aft sails set.

4. That the master of the "Araby Maid" was justified in wearing his ship from the starboard on to the port tack at the time and place at which that evolution was performed.

5. That the master of the "Araby Maid" was justified in continuing his course on the port tack, after shutting in the lower light of the South Foreland; but that there is nothing to shew that he ever shut in the higher light, until compelled to do so by the position of the "Loch Fyne" forcing him inshore.

6. That the course pursued by the master of the "Araby Maid" was rendered necessary by the conduct of those in charge of the "Loch Fyne," in allowing that vessel to go stern foremost across the course of vessels entering and leaving the Downs, until she had got within a short distance of the beach.

7. That the letting go of the anchor of the "Araby Maid" was not, under the circumstances, justifiable, and that it was due to an order given by the master, that the anchor should be got ready to let go, having been converted by the second mate into an order to let the anchor go.

8. That, saving in regard to letting go the anchor, the "Araby Maid" was navigated with seamanlike care and skill.

9. That the loss of the life of the infant passenger of the "Araby Maid" was due to the mother having insisted on taking the child with her, although strongly urged by the master and mate to entrust it to one of the seamen, and to its having been washed out of the mother's arms on the way to the shore; and, although, as the event has shewn, it might have been better to have tied the child round the mother's waist, it cannot be said that the precautions taken were not reasonable and proper.

10. That the "Loch Fyne" was under weigh when the "Araby Maid" approached and passed under her stern, and that she was at the time justified in exhibiting her side lights.

11. That the master of the "Loch Fyne," when the "Araby Maid" was approaching her, was not in a position to take any steps to get out of the way, his vessel not being under proper command; but that he was not justified, under the circumstances, in keeping her under so little sail, driving astern across the track of vessels entering and leaving the Downs, until she had got very near to the shore.

12. That the master of the "Loch Fyne" is to blame for having put his vessel into such a position as to compel the "Araby Maid" to go inshore of him, and too near to the beach; and that the second mate of the "Araby Maid" is to also blame for having given the order to let go the anchor, when the order was only get it ready to let go.

The Court, however, under the circumstances, will not deal with the certificates of either of these officers.

No application was made for any order as to costs.

Dated the 15th day of December 1880.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

 

 

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

EDWARD HIGHT,

Assessors.

 

 

THOS, BEASLEY,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 14th and 15th of December instant, when Mr Raikes appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Bucknill for the master, and Mr. Gibson for the owners of the "Araby Maid." Seven witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Raikes asked the opinion of the Court upon the following questions:-

" 1. What was the cause of the stranding of the " barque 'Araby Maid'?

" 2. Was the master of the 'Araby Maid' justified in " attempting to proceed to sea on the afternoon of the " 18th November?

" 3. Was the master of the 'Araby Maid' justified in " getting under weigh, under the circumstances of the " weather and tide, with only his lower topsails and " fore and aft sails set?

" 4. Was the master of the 'Araby Maid' justified in " wearing his ship from the starboard on to the port " tack at the time and place at which that evolution " was performed?

" 5. Was the master of the 'Araby Maid' justified in " continuing his course on the port tack after shutting " in either or both of the South Foreland Lights?

" 6. Was the course pursued by the master of the " 'Araby Maid' rendered necessary or justified by the " conduct of those in charge of the 'Loch Fyne'?

" 7. By whose orders was the anchor let go, and was " the letting go of the anchor justifiable under the " circumstances?

" 8. Was the 'Araby Maid' navigated with seaman- " like care and skill?

" 9. What was the cause of the loss of the life of the " infant passenger of the 'Araby Maid'?

" 10. Was the 'Loch Fyne' under weigh or at " anchor at the time the ' Araby Maid' approached and " passed her, and was she at that time justified in " exhibiting a red light?

" 11. If the 'Loch Fyne' was not at anchor, was it " the duty of the master to have taken any steps to " keep out of the way of the 'Araby Maid,' and, if so, " were any such steps taken?

" 12. Were the master, and chief and second mates " of the 'Araby Maid,' or any of them, or the master of " the 'Loch Fyne,' in default?"

Mr. Raikes further stated that "the Board of Trade " are of opinion that the certificates of the master, and " the chief and second mates of the 'Araby Maid,' and " the master of the 'Loch Fyne,' should be dealt " with."

Mr. Bucknill and Mr. Gibson then addressed the Court on behalf of their respective parties, and Mr. Raikes having replied 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 follow:-

The "Araby Maid," which is a vessel of 837 tons register, belonging to the Port of Leith, was built at Greenock, in the year 1868, and, at the time of the casualty which forms the cause of the present inquiry, was the property of Mr. William Thomson, junior, of No. 63, Constitution Street, Leith, and others, Mr. W. Thomson, junior, being the managing owner. She left London on the 17th November last, in tow of a steam tug, bound to Port Chalmers, Otago, with a cargo of about 1,560 tons of general merchandize, a crew of 19 hands all told, and 6 adult and 3 children passengers on board. She passed Gravesend at about 4 p.m. the same day, and having there taken in a Trinity House pilot, as well as a coasting or Channel pilot named George Hodges, to assist the master to navigate the vessel down Channel, she proceeded on her voyage, arriving in the Downs at 4 a.m. of the 18th, and was there brought to anchor, with the South Sand Head Light bearing South, and Walmer Castle, W. by N., distant a mile and a half, the wind at the time blowing a fresh breeze from W. to W. by S., and the weather threatening, with a falling barometer. At 4 p.m. the same day the wind had worked round to the eastward, blowing strong and gusty from about S.E. by S., and as this made the Downs a lee shore, and the tide had begun to set to the southward, the master deemed it prudent to get under weigh, for the purpose of rounding the South Foreland. Accordingly, having set the lower topsails and the fore and aft canvass, they tripped the anchor at about 5 p.m., and stood away on the starboard tack, heading about N.E. by E., but making about a N.E. by N. course. In about 20 minutes they had succeeded in getting the anchor to the bows, upon which, as there were a number of vessels lying at anchor to the northward and eastward, and it was inexpedient in the then state of the weather and with darkness coming on, to get in amongst them, the master determined to put the vessel on the other tack; and as there was not sufficient canvas on the vessel to stay her, he gave orders to wear the ship, and in a few minutes she was round on the port tack, close hauled, and heading about S. 1/2 W., the high light of the South Foreland being visible, but the low light being obscured by the land. They then proceeded to get sail on her as quickly as possible; and whilst so employed a red light was observed about 3 points on the starboard bow.

This light, as was afterwards ascertained, came from the "Loch Fyne," a vessel of 1,213 tons register, which had left London on the 12th of November, bound to Glasgow, with a crew of 25 hands all told. She had passed through the Downs, and had got down as far as the Royal Sovereign Shoal, when she was compelled, by the stormy character of the weather, to put back, and came to anchor at about 4 p.m. of the 14th of the same month, with the South Sand Head Light bearing S.S.E, true, and the Gull Stream Light Ship N.E. by N., also true. According to the captain, she was anchored at a distance of from 1/2 to 3/4 of a mile from the S.W. Goodwin Buoy, and in a direct line between it and Kingsdown Village. There we are told she remained at anchor, only slightly altering her position, until the afternoon of the 18th, when the wind having gone round to the eastward, the master determined to get under weigh, and go round the South Foreland, and with this view he ordered the lower topsails and main stay sail to be set, and at about 5 p.m. she tripped her anchor. At this time there was a small vessel riding at anchor ahead of them, and accordingly the master deemed it advisable to allow his vessel to drift with the tide, intending thus to pass the South Foreland; but, the wind being very strong and on the starboard bow, and the tide on the port side, the vessel, instead of making way to the southward, seems to have driven nearly stern foremost towards the beach, having all the time her red and green lights exhibited; and when her red light was first seen from the "Araby Maid," she had got to within about two cables' length of the 17 foot soundings, and was heading to the N.E., her port side being towards the "Araby Maid."

On sighting the red light of the "Loch Fyne," the. master of the "Araby Maid," believing her to be a. vessel heading off the shore, ordered the helm to be ported, so as to go under her stern, and when they had brought the light about a point on the starboard bow, the helm was steadied; in the expectation that before they reached her, the vessel would draw ahead and allow them to pass under her stern, being at the same time anxious not to go any nearer to the beach. Finding, however, that the red light was not closing in upon them, and supposing that it was being shewn by some mistake from a vessel at anchor, or that the vessel. which was exhibiting it had not sufficient sail to take her off the land, the master of the "Araby Maid" ordered the helm to be starboarded, so as to bring the vessel up again to the wind. On nearing her, however, they made out that she was a vessel heading off the shore, and fearing that they would not be able to clear her by going ahead of her, the master ordered the helm to be put hard down to stay the vessel. On coming up into the wind, the vessel missed stays, and fell off again; and there was then nothing for it but to port the helm, and to pass under her stern, which they cleared by about 50 yards, the vessel at the time going at the rate of from 3 1/2 to 4 knots over the ground. At this time, owing to some misapprehension, the "Araby Maid's" anchor was suddenly let go, but it did not bring her up until 45 fathoms of chain had been run out. Owning, however, to the bottom being chalk, it had no hold of the ground, and the vessel then began to drive in towards the beach, in a short time she touched, and then fell broadside to the sea, the sea making a clean breach over her. Being at no great distance from the Kingsdown Coast Guard Station, the rocket apparatus was soon got out, and a communication having been established with the ship, the whole of the crew and passengers were landed, with the exception of an infant of about 16 months old, whom the mother insisted upon taking with her, but which was washed out of the breeches buoy on the way to the shore. In the mean time the "Loch Fyne," which, when the "Araby Maid" passed her, had little or no headway, had succeeded in hauling off the shore, and came to anchor a little to the northward of Kingsdown Station. The "Araby Maid," we are told, was subsequently got off the beach, and has since been brought to London, and is now undergoing repairs.

These being the facts of the case, the first question on which our opinion is asked is, "What was the cause of " the stranding of the 'Araby Maid?'" and to this the answer is very simple. The "Araby Maid" having after she had sighted the red light of the "Loch Fyne,'' missed stays, had nothing left for her to do but to pass astern of her. Whilst doing so, and making at the time from 3 1/2 to 4 knots over the ground, the anchor was suddenly dropped, but the bottom being chalk, and the anchor not holding, she dragged until she struck on the beach. This, no doubt, was the cause of the stranding of the vessel.

The next question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Was the master of the "Araby Maid" justi- " fied in attempting to proceed to sea on the afternoon " of the 18th of November?" In our opinion he was. The wind having backed round from S. to about S.E. by E., thus rendering the Downs a lee shore, and the tide having begun to make to the southward, not only was the master justified, but it was his duty to get under weigh and pass the South Foreland.

The third question which we are asked is, "Was the " master of the 'Araby Maid' justified in getting " under weigh under the circumstances of the weather " and tide, with only her lower topsails, and fore and " aft sails set?" in the opinion of the assessors, the master was fully justified in getting under weigh with only his lower topsails and fore and aft canvas set; it was sufficient to give him good headway whilst he was getting his anchor to the bows, and during that time the crew would not be able to get any more sail on her.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "Was " the master of the 'Araby Maid ' justified in wearing " his ship from the starboard to the port tack at the " time and place at which that evolution was per- " formed?" The master of the "Araby Maid" told us, and his evidence was confirmed in this respect by that of the master of the "Loch Fyne," that there were a number of vessels lying at anchor to the N.E. of them, and therefore it was quite proper in the then state of the weather to go about, for it would have been dangerous to have got in amongst them; and being unable with the sails which she had on her, to stay, his only course was to wear her.

The fifth question is, "Was the master of the 'Araby " Maid' justified in continuing his course on the port " tack, after shutting in either or both of the South " Foreland Lights?" it seems that whilst the "Araby Maid" was heading to the N.E., on the starboard tack, she had both the South Foreland Lights in view; but in wearing she lost the low light, still keeping sight however of the high light; but I am not aware that she ever lost both lights, until indeed she was obliged to alter her course nearer to the beach, in order to avoid the "Loch Fyne." No blame however in our opinion attaches to the master for having shut in the lower light; for Hodges the pilot told us that they very often lay their course to pass the South Foreland with only the high light in view.

The sixth question is, "Was the course pursued by " the master of the 'Araby Maid' rendered necessary, " or justified by the conduct of those in charge of the " 'Loch Fyne'?" When the master of the "Araby Maid" first observed the red light of the "Loch Fyne" from 2 1/2 to 3 points on his starboard bow, he did right to port his helm so as to pass under her stern, believing that she was a vessel on the starboard tack, and that she was reaching off the land. Finding, however, that the light was not closing in upon them, and that she was therefore not drawing ahead, he did quite right to bring his vessel to the wind again, as he might naturally suppose either that she was a vessel at anchor, or that she had not sufficient sail to draw off the land, as in that case he could safely have gone ahead of her. On nearing her however, and finding that she was really heading to cross his bows, and fearing that he would not be able to clear her, he acted again quite rightly in endeavouring to stay his vessel to go about. When, however, his vessel missed stays, there was nothing for it, but to port his helm, and go under the "Loch Fyne's" stern. It was suggested that he might have dropped his anchor, but in our opinion that would not have been a proper course to take, as it would probably have brought him into collision with the "Loch Fyne." We think therefore that the course pursued by the master of the "Araby Maid" was rendered necessary and was justified by the conduct of those in charge of the "Loch Fyne."

The seventh question which we are asked is, "By " whose orders was the anchor let go, and was the " letting go of the anchor justifiable under the circum- " stances?" I think that nobody can have any doubt that the letting go of the anchor was under the circumstances unjustifiable; there has indeed been no attempt to justify it, and the only question is, by whose orders it was done. The master of the "Araby Maid" told us that when they were nearing the "Loch Fyne," he resolved, owing to the stormy state of the weather, to bring the ship up head to wind, as soon as he was clear of the " Loch Fyne," and to drop the anchor; and he accordingly ordered the second mate to go forward and tell the first mate to get the anchor ready to let go; and Hodge the pilot has said that he heard the master give that order. The second mate said that the order which he received from the master was to let the anchor go, and that that was the order which he conveyed to the first mate; but the latter told us that on receiving that order he thought that there must have been some mistake, and he accordingly told the second mate to go back and ascertain if that was the order. The second mate told us that he did go aft, and asked the master, whether the anchor was to be let go, and that the master told him it was. The master however, says that he has no recollection of being asked by the second mate as to what order he had given. That the master should have given the order to let go the anchor before the vessel had been brought up into the wind and her way taken off her, is in the highest degree improbable; and we have no reason to think that the order which he gave was other than that which he has stated, namely, to get the anchor ready to let go. At to the first mate, he at first very properly hesitated to obey the order to let the anchor go, thinking that some mistake must have been made; when however, the same order was repeated by the second mate, he had no option but to obey it. In our opinion the blame for letting go this anchor rests with the second mate, who as a seaman ought to have doubted whether he had rightly apprehended the order, and should therefore have satisfied himself that he did understand it, especially after having been sent back by the chief officer to enquire. No doubt there was some confusion on board, owing to the vessel having missed stays, and to the fear that she might not be able to clear the "Loch Fyne;" at the same time there can be no doubt that the casualty was in a great measure due to the anchor having been unfortunately dropped at this moment; for, had this not occurred, it is very probable that the vessel would have cleared the beach. There was no doubt at the time some confusion, owing to the vessel having just missed stays, and to their finding themselves nearly coming into collision with another vessel; but this does not absolve the second mate from blame for not ascertaining exactly what the order was, more especially after he had been sent back by the chief officer.

The eighth question which we are asked is, "Was " the 'Araby Maid' navigated with reasonable care " and skill?" Apart from the dropping of the anchor which was a mistake, the vessel appears to have been navigated with seamanlike care and skill; no vessel could have been better handled than she was.

The ninth question is, "What was the cause of the " loss of life of the infant passenger of the 'Araby " Maid?'" it seems that the mother of the child had been put into the breeches buoy for conveyance to the shore, but she refused to leave without her child, an infant of only sixteen months old. The captain and the chief officer urged her to allow them to send the child on shore with one of the seamen, who would have taken proper care of it, but the mother refused and insisted upon having her child with her, refusing to leave without it, and holding on all the time to the side of the vessel. At this time the vessel was on the beach, driving in broadside to the sea, with the rope now slack, now taut, and it was of the utmost importance to the lives of all on board that they should be got ashore as quickly as possible, which the refusal of the mother to leave prevented. Under these circumstances it appears to us that the master had no option but to give the infant to its mother's arms, and what he says he did was to put it down between the mother's legs as low as he could in the breeches buoy. The pilot also has told us that for greater security he tied some of the ropes, by which the buoy is suspended, together over the mother's head. Unfortunately however, in going ashore the poor woman, owing to the slackening of the rope, seems to have been twice dipped under water, and on one of those occasions she lost her hold of the child, and it was washed out. If they had thought of it at the time, it would no doubt have been better to have fastened the child round the mother's waist with a shawl or something of the kind; but they evidently thought that the child placed as it was would be safe in its mother's arms, and under the circumstances, we are not disposed to blame them, or to say that the loss of that child's life was due to any want of care on their part.

The tenth question which we are asked is, "Was the " 'Loch Fyne' under weigh or at anchor at the time " the 'Araby Maid' approached and passed her, and " was she at that time justified in exhibiting a red " light?" There can be no doubt that the "Loch Fyne," when the "Araby Maid" passed her, was under weigh, and it was consequently her duty to have her side lights exhibited in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. Our attention, however, was called to Article 5 of those Regulations, and it was suggested that possibly she ought to have carried the lights prescribed by that article; but that article relates to vessels "employed " either in laying or in picking up a telegraph cable, or " which, from any accident, is not under command;" and in our opinion it does not apply to the "Loch Fyne," which, although at the time not, perhaps, strictly speaking, under command, was not out of command owing to any such accident as seems to be contemplated in this Article. We think, therefore, that the "Loch Fyne" did right to exhihit her red light under the circumstances.

The eleventh question which we are asked is, "If " the 'Loch Fyne' was not at anchor, was it the duty " of the master to have taken any steps to keep out of " the way of the 'Araby Maid,' and, if so, were any " such steps taken?" When the "Araby Maid" was approaching the "Loch Fyne," it would seem that the latter had no headway, or hardly any, upon her; and it was, therefore, out of her power to get out of the way; but the question is, whether she ought to have placed herself in such a position. It seems that she got under weigh at about the same time as the "'Araby Maid," but instead of setting sufficient fore and aft sail to give her headway, as the "Araby Maid" had done, she loosed only the two lower topsails and the main topmast staysail, and then allowed herself to drift with the tide on her port side and with the wind on her starboard bow. As, however, the wind was much stronger than the tide, the result would seem to have been that she was set almost directly towards the shore; for, according to the master, when she got under weigh she was within half to three quarters of a mile from the S.W. Goodwin Buoy, and between it and Kingsdown Station, and when the "Araby Maid" was approaching her, she was a little to the south of Kingsdown, but about a mile and-a-half nearer to the shore, and within a couple of cables' length of the line of the 17 foot soundings. She must, therefore, have been going astern all the time, with her side lights exhibited, crossing the track of as vessels entering and leaving the Downs to the imminent danger of herself and of other vessels. Had the "Loch Fyne" been a vessel at anchor, the "Araby Maid" would have passed ahead of her without having to alter her course; or, had she had sufficient headway upon her, she would have drawn ahead before the "Araby Maid" had come up to her; but lying with her head to the eastward, barely, if at all, moving through the water, and yet with her side lights exhibited, the "Araby Maid," when she made her out, was placed in the very awkward position of having either to cross her bows or to endeavour to pass under her stern, thus bringing herself nearer to the beach than she would otherwise have gone.

This brings us to the last question, namely, "Was " the master, the chief and second mates of the 'Araby " Maid,' or any of them, or the master of the 'Loch " Fyne,' in default?" and ought the Court to deal with their certificates? As regards the master of the "Araby Maid," we cannot see that he was in any way to blame; in the position in which he was he had no option, after the vessel had missed stays, but to port his helm and go under the stern of the "Loch Fyne," which brought him much nearer to the shore than he would otherwise have been. Nor is the chief mate, in our opinion, in any way to blame. When he first received the order to drop the anchor, he took the very proper precaution of sending the second mate aft again to ascertain if that was really the order; and upon the second mate returning, and telling him that it was, he had no option but to obey it. As regards, however, the second mate, we think that he is to blame for having conveyed the order in the first instance in so careless a way, and when sent back by the chief officer, for not taking care to ascertain with certainty what the order really was. The mistake which he made has, no doubt, been attended with very serious loss to the owners, and with the loss of the life of one of the children on board; but, under the circumstances, we shall not deal with his certificate. As regards the master of the "Loch Fyne," we think that he is to blame for having kept his vessel with only her two lower topsails and main topmast staystail set nearly head to wind, going astern a distance of a mile and-a-half across the track of vessels entering and leaving the Downs, and until she had got to within two cables' lengths of the line of the 17 foot soundings, and all the time with her side lights exhibited, which would be very likely to mislead any vessel that might be approaching her, and which did, in fact, mislead the "Araby Maid." What the Assessors tell me me she ought to have done, as soon as she had cleared the little vessel which was lying at anchor ahead of her, was to have got up some more fore and aft sail so as to have been well under control. Seeing, however, that the master of the "Loch Fyne" was at the time actively engaged in attending to his duties, and that his mistake was due rather to an error of judgment than to negligence, we shall not deal with his certificate.

The Court was not asked to make any order as to costs.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

 

 

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

EDMUND HIGHT,

Assessors.

 

 

THOS. BEASLEY,

 

L. 367. 612. 200.-1/81. Wt. 47. E. & S.