Wreck Report for 'Enterprise', 1880

(No. 840)

"ENTERPRISE."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Westminster on the 21st, 23rd, and 24th of December 1880, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain HARRIS and Captain RONALDSON, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the abandonment of the British sailing ship "ENTERPRISE," of Portsmouth, on the 29th October last, whilst on a voyage from Portsmouth to Hartlepool.

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 vessel, when she left Portsmouth, on the voyage in question, was in good and seaworthy condition, and that there is nothing to shew that her steering gear was not in good and proper order.

2. That the ballast, with which she was loaded, was not improper ballast under the circumstances for the voyage on which she was bound.

3. That the ballast was of sufficient quantity, and that it was properly trimmed and stowed.

4. That the usual and proper measures were taken to prevent the pumps from being choked with ballast.

5. That the vessel was on the 30th of October unmanageable.

6. That she was unmanageable, not on account of the character or condition of the ballast, or from any defects in her steering gear, but because of the violence of the gale, her light draught, the form of her bottom, and her indifferent sailing qualities.

7. That the vessel was navigated with proper and seamanlike care and skill.

8. That the abandonment, although somewhat hastily made, was not, under the circumstances, unjustifiable.

9. That the owner is not to blame for the condition in which the vessel was sent to sea.

10. That neither the master nor the mate are so much to blame for abandoning the vessel, as to justify the Court in dealing with their certificates.

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

Dated the 24th day of December 1880.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

 

 

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

HY. HARRIS,

Assessors.

 

 

A. RONALDSON,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 21st, 23rd, and 24th December instant, when Mr. Muir Mackenzie appeared for the Board of Trade. The owner, master, and mate of the "Enterprise" were present on the 21st instant, but were not represented by counsel or solicitor. Seven witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade, and examined, Mr. Muir Mackenzie asked the opinion of the Court upon the following questions, viz.:-

1. Was the vessel, when she left Portsmouth on the voyage in question, in good and seaworthy condition, and was her steering gear in good and proper order?

2. Was the ballast with which she was loaded proper ballast?

3. Was the ballast of sufficient quantity, and was it properly trimmed and stowed?

4. Were proper and sufficient measures taken to protect the pumps from being choked with ballast?

5. Did the vessel on the 30th of October become unmanageable?

6. If she did, was it due-

(a.) To the ballast becoming mixed with water and reduced to a puddle?

(b.) To defects in her steering gear?

7. Was the vessel navigated with proper and seamanlike care and skill?

8. Was she justifiably abandoned?

9. Is the owner to blame for the condition in which the vessel was sent to sea?

10. Are the master and mate, or either of them, to blame for abandoning the vessel?

Mr. Muir Mackenzie also stated that, "the Board of " Trade are of opinion that the certificates of the master " and mate should be dealt with."

Mr. John Thomas Crampton, the owner, thereupon applied that the case might be adjourned to the 23rd instant, to enable him to procure legal assistance, and, if necessary, to produce further evidence, and Mr. Muir Mackenzie having consented thereto, the Court granted the application.

Upon the inquiry being resumed, Mr. Nelson appeared for the owner, the master and mate being again present, but not represented by counsel or solicitor. Mr. Nelson then produced seven witnesses, and recalled two who had been previously examined. All parties then stated that they had no further evidence to produce; and the master and mate having addressed the Court on their own behalf, and Mr. Nelson having been heard for the owner, Mr. Muir Mackenzie replied for the Board of Trade; and the Court thereupon proceeded to give judgment upon the questions upon which its opinions had been asked. The circumstances of the case are as follow:-

The "Enterprise," which is a wooden vessel of 275 tons register, belonging to the port of Portsmouth, was built in the year 1879 by her owner, Mr. John Thomas Crampton, of Albion House, Mile End, Landport, in the county of Hants, ship owner. She left Portsmouth on the 11th of October last with a crew of eight hands all told, and 140 tons of ballast, bound to East Hartlepool, and the wind being adverse she came to anchor at Spithead. There she remained until the 18th, when the wind having gone round to N.W. by W., and the weather being moderate, she proceeded on her voyage, and at noon of the 20th brought up in Seaford roads; but the wind having gone round to the eastward, she put back, and on the 22nd again anchored at Spithead. On the 25th, the wind being light from the N.W., she again proceeded on her voyage, and between 5 and 6 a.m. of the 29th was off the coast of Norfolk, some 12 to 15 miles to the eastward of Winterton Ridge, heading about N.N.E., when a gale sprung up from the northward which increased to a hurricane, and the vessel thereupon paid off dead before the wind. Finding, however, that she was yawing about from side to side, and fearing to come into collision with some of the numerous fishing boats in the neighbourhood, she was hove to under close reefed topsails and jib, with her head to the eastward. Between 4 and 5 p.m. the same day the weather moderated, and the master, thinking that she had got sufficiently far to the eastward, wore her with her head to the westward, the wind blowing a stiff breeze from north to N.W., the vessel, however, still driving fast to leeward. During the gale some water had got into her-how does not clearly appear; and we are told that the ballast was heard to be washing about in the hold. As soon as they were able they took off the after hatch, and saw what they believed to be the ballast in a liquid state washing about from side to side. Some of it was accordingly pumped out, and on the pumps becoming choked they let down a bucket through the after hatchway and took out some more; but fearing to lighten her too much they desisted. Finding that the vessel was fast drifting towards the Belgian coast, they hoisted a signal for assistance; and at between 4 and 5 p.m. the "Bittern" steamship bore down and tendered her services. At this time the North Hinder Lightship bore S.S.W., distant 10 miles; so that the vessel had got some 70 miles to the southward and eastward from where she was when the gale first struck her. From 5 to 11 p.m. the crews of the two vessels were engaged trying to get a hawser from the "Enterprise" to the "Bittern," but owing to the state of the weather and to the unmanageable condition of the former vessel, it was found impossible to do so; and at length the master of the "Bittern" hailed to say that he could do nothing more for them, and asked what they intended to do. Upon this the master, finding that the crew were anxious to leave her, and seeing that she was still drifting to leeward, and that they were nearing the Belgian coast, the North Hinder Light-ship then bearing W. 1/2 N., distant 5 miles, consented to abandon the vessel, and go on board the "Bittern," which they did, and were subsequently landed in safety in the port of London.

In the meantime the "Enterprise" continued to drift before the wind towards the coast, and at about 8 a.m. of the following day she was seen by a Mr. Aspeslagh, a Belgian pilot, who was out cruising in his cutter off Blankenberg. At this time the vessel was lying with her head to the southward, her fore-topmast staysail set, and the anchor and ten fathoms of chain hanging over her bows, drifting towards the beach, which was only about three miles distant. Mr. Aspeslagh accordingly boarded her with four of his men, and finding that she had only one foot of water in her, he determined to try to take her into Flushing. He accordingly set the fore and main top sails, braced the yards round and hoisted the jib, and having then slipped the anchor, hard astarboarded the helm, with the view of putting her before the wind. Finding that she would not pay off, he set the flying jib, but this also failed to make her pay off; and he then observed a long rope hanging from her starboard bow, no doubt the rope with which they had endeavoured to effect a communication with the steamer. On cutting it she immediately paid off; he then squared the yards and ran before the wind, arriving in Flushing roads at about 1 p.m.; and on the following day she was taken into the harbour. As soon as the owner heard of the safe arrival of his vessel in port, he despatched an agent to Flushing, who succeeded in effecting an arrangement with the salvors, and Captain Meades and a crew of eight men were thereupon sent from this country to take charge of her. They arrived, we are told, on the 12th of November, and Captain Meades' first duty, as he has told us, was to clear out the limbers, which he found to be full of sand; and he then took in some 30 more tons of ballast, which had been offered to him by the master of a vessel which was lying alongside. Having repaired the mizen gaff, which had been broken, they left Flushing on the 20th, and arrived on the following Wednesday at Sunderland. There she took in a cargo of coal, with which she sailed for Southampton water, where we are told she now is discharging, without any repairs, beyond replacing the mizen gaff having been done to her.

These being the facts of the case, the first question, upon which our opinion has been asked, is, "Was the " vessel, when she left Portsmouth on the voyage in " question, in good and seaworthy condition, and was " her steering gear in good and proper order?" As we have already said, the vessel was nearly new, having been built in 1879, and she was classed A 1 for eight years. All the witnesses, too, including the master and mate, speak of her as a good vessel, and as being well equipped; and there is no reason therefore to suppose that when she left Portsmouth she was not in a good and seaworthy condition, so far, at least, as the hull was concerned. And perhaps the best proof of this is that she weathered, with only the loss of her mizen gaff, the terrible gale of the 29th and 30th of October, during which we were told by Mr. Nelson that no fewer than 280 vessels were either wrecked or seriously damaged between the Humber and the Firth of Forth. As regards, too, the steering gear, there is nothing to show that it also was not in good order. It was said, indeed, by the master and mate, and their evidence was supported by the crew, that she steered badly, and that in bad weather she became quite unmanageable, more especially when in ballast. The mate also told us that on the former voyage to the North he found that she sailed so badly, that he nailed some battons on the rudder to give it a better hold of the water, and these battons, it seems, are still there. The Belgian pilot also told us that in running for Flushing she did knock about a good deal, but that he had no difficulty in keeping her on her course; she was then, however; before the wind, and the weather had considerably moderated. Moreover, Captain Meades, the master, who was sent to take charge of her at Flushing, said that in going from there to Sunderland she steered like all colliers when light, but that the weather was favourable, and that he had only occasion to stay her twice, and that on one of those occasions she missed stays, but that when laden she steered well. On the whole the conclusion to which we have come is, that the vessel was, as Captain Meades observed, like most colliers when light-difficult to keep on her course, perhaps more so, owing to her very flat bottom, than other vessels. It is also admitted that she was a very slow sailer, which would prevent her answering her helm so readily as if she had had more way through the water. Whilst, then, there is nothing to shew that the steering gear was not in good and proper order, we are disposed to think that her steering qualities were not of a very high order.

The second question which we are asked is, "Was " the ballast, with which she was loaded, proper " ballast?" In answering this question we have been placed in a postion of some difficulty, owing to the fact that the only evidence which has been laid before us on the point is that of the master and mate of the vessel, and of a number of skilled witnesses who have been produced by the owner. And although the case was adjourned after the first day's hearing, and chiefly for the purpose of obtaining evidence as to the character of the ballast which this vessel had on board, no witness was produced by the Board of Trade to tell us what is the character of the ballast usually taken in at Portsmouth, and whether it was or was not proper ballast. Apart, therefore, from the evidence of the master and mate, the former of whom had never sailed out of Portsmouth before he joined the "Enterprise," we are left in the position of having to decide the very important question of whether the ballast usually used at Portsmouth is or is not proper ballast on the evidence produced by the owner only; and, as Mr. Nelson justly observed, if that evidence was not to be relied on, it would have been easy for the Board of Trade to have produced, at the adjourned hearing, witnesses who could have told us what its character was. Judging, then, from the evidence as it has been laid before us, it would seem that the ballast usually shipped on board vessels in the Port of Portsmouth is either Langston ballast or the dredgings of Portsmouth Harbour, or generally a mixture of the two. Langston ballast, we are told, consists of sand and shingle, and is clean and dry; whereas Portsmouth Harbour dredgings consist of a mixture of mud, shell, shingle, and refuse, the proportions varying considerably, there being sometimes very little mud, sometimes a good deal. It seems that the "Enterprise" had first a barge load of Langston ballast put into her, consisting of 90 tons, which was arranged in the following way: 40 tons were put in the bows, 40 tons in the stern, and five tons amidships on each side, leaving a hollow in the middle; and into this hollow were put about 50 tons of Portsmouth Harbour dredgings, of which, we are told, about one-third was mud. There can be no doubt that a large proportion of mud amongst the ballast would be attended with considerable danger; for, notwithstanding Mr. Threadingham's evidence, that the mud of Portsmouth Harbour when once disturbed solidifies to that extent that, even if put under water, it will not liquefy, that is not in accordance with our experience of mud in other parts of the world. No doubt, if the water is allowed to drain away from it, the mud would become hard; but if the water is again brought in contact with it, it will liquefy; and no reason has been given why the mud of Portsmouth Harbour should be an exception to this general law; and Mr. Nelson himself admitted that this mud would be a good form of ballast, provided that the vessel did not make any water, and in that opinion we are disposed to concur. Seeing, however, that all vessels are liable to make water, under certain circumstances, it can hardly be said that, if there was any large proportion of mud amongst it, it would be a proper ballast. Secondly, as regards the Langston sand, I am told by the assessors that sand is always a treacherous ballast, for that where water will go sand will go too, and that on this account it is seldom or never used by vessels going long voyages. The only way to prevent its getting into the limbers and choking the pumps is to caulk the ceiling, but this is, of course, out of the question for a collier. The assessors, however, tell me that sand may be safely used for a short coasting voyage, and that it is only when the voyage is unduly prolonged by stress of weather or other circumstances, as in this case, that its use is attended with danger. Strictly speaking, therefore, neither mud nor sand can be considered as very good ballast, for both are liable to get into the limbers and choke the pumps, and if other ballast could be procured, it no doubt ought to be. We are told that chalk is sometimes procurable, but is always carried as cargo, and that not more than 2 per cent. of the ships going out of Portsmouth can obtain it; and in default of chalk there is no other ballast but this Langston sand and Portsmouth Harbour dredgings, and that if vessels were prohibited from taking it, it would be doing a very great injury to the commerce of the port. Seeing, then, the overwhelming evidence which has been produced by the owner as to the character of the ballast which was on board this vessel-the difficulty of obtaining any other, and that it has been used for years without, so far as the witnesses knew, any evil consequences having resulted therefrom; seeing also that this evidence stands wholly uncontradicted-we are not prepared to say that for a coasting voyage, such as this vessel was bound on, the ballast with which she was loaded was otherwise than proper ballast, or that it was such as to be unfit for use.

The third question which we are asked is, "Was the " ballast of sufficient quantity, and was it properly " trimmed and stowed?" The total amount of ballast put on board was 140 tons, which we are told was the quantity she usually carried, and which would sink her to her ballast line, namely, 6 feet 6 aft and 6 feet forward, or a mean of 6 feet 3 inches. This, in the opinion of the assessors, would, for a vessel of her size, be amply sufficient. It is true that Captain Meades, before leaving Flushing, took in 30 tons additional, which were offered to him by the master of a vessel lying alongside of him; but the assessors are of opinion that, as he obtained it without payment, he exercised a wise discretion in accepting it, the more so as it was a winter voyage, for it is clear that the vessel would be safer and sail better with a greater amount of ballast. That the ballast, too, was properly trimmed and stowed seems not to be disputed; the Langston sand, which was dry, being put forward and aft and in the wings, whilst the dredgings, which was probably softer, but which, as it dried, would become solid, being placed in the middle.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "Were " proper and sufficient measures taken to protect the " pumps from being choked with ballast?" According to the mate, the trunk which surrounded the pump was quile tight, but the ceiling he said was open in places, but that was above where the ballast was. If, indeed, there were any open places in the ceiling through which the sand could have got, it would have been the duty of the master and the mate to have stopped them up before allowing the ballast to come in; but, as I have already said, sand will go wherever water will, and if water gets into the vessel it is almost impossible to prevent the sand from following it, filling the limbers and choking the pumps; and the assessors tell me that vessels which carry sand as ballast should have their limbers cleaned out after every voyage. The fact, therefore, that the limbers were found to be quite full of sand at Flushing is hardly to be wondered at, seeing that the voyage had been unduly prolonged, and that she had met with very severe weather.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Did the " vessel on the 30th of October become unmanageable?" No doubt the violence of a gale may be such that any vessel for the time may become unmanageable to the extent that it would be impossible to keep her on her course; but the question which we have to consider is, whether, on the evening of the 30th of October, when the master and crew abandoned her, she was unmanageable; and in our opinion she was. It seems to be admitted that during the height of the gale the vessel was unmanageable, for she had been driven from some 12 to 15 miles east of Winterton Ridge to within 10 miles of of the North Hinder light vessel-a distance of about 70 miles, between 6 a.m. of the 29th, when the gale first struck her, and 5 p.m. of the 30th, when the "Bittern" first went to her assistance. The fact, too, that the two vessels were engaged for six hours trying to pass a hawser, but were not able tt do so, shews us that at that time, although the weather had considerably moderated, the "Enterprise" was still unmanageable; and it is not denied that during those six hours she had driven some 10 miles to leeward. Moreover, we have on this point only the evidence of those from the "Enterprise," for no one has been produced from the "Bittern," and they all swear that she was unmanageable. We have, therefore, no option but to believe them.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "If the " vessel was unmanageable was it due to the ballast " becoming mixed with water, and reduced to a puddle," or "to defects in her steering gear?" In considering whether the vessel could have been rendered unmanageable by the condition of the ballast, it will be necessary to ascertain what portion of it had been liquefied by the water, and how much had been pumped or baled out of her. According to the master and the mate, all or nearly all the ballast had been reduced to a fluid state, and was washing from side to side as the vessel rolled; and their evidence was confirmed by those members of the crew who have been produced before us. We have also the evidence of the Belgian pilot, who told us that on looking down the after hatchway he saw the mud and water washing from side to side as the vessel rolled. On the other hand, we are told by Captain Meades, that when he took charge of the vessel at Flushing, she was down to her ballast line, shewing that Very little of the ballast could have been taken out of her then. He told us also that he carefully examined the hold and the ballast, and that he dug a trench through it fore and aft, so as to clear out the limbers; and he said that it was quite dry and hard then, and that it had certainly not shifted to the extent which the master and mate would lead us to suppose, not more than about three inches up the side, and to a small extent forward. It certainly is not very easy to reconcile these apparently contradictory statements, but we think that they can be reconciled without attributing wilful and deliberate perjury either to the one side or the other, which a Court is always most unwilling to do. It appears to us that what may have occurred is this:-During the gale of the 29th the vessel took in, as we are told, and as might naturally be expected, some water; this, if it came in contact with the mud, which it is admitted, composed one-third of the harbour dredgings, would certainly liquefy it, not perhaps however to the extent the master and mate supposed. A small quantity of mud and water on the surface washing from side to side, as the vessel rolled, might well convey to any one looking down the hatchway the impression that the whole of it was alive, when in fact the greater part of it was still quite undisturbed. This would account for the master and crew of the "Enterprise," as well as the Belgian pilot, believing, when they looked into the hold, that the ballast was all afloat. On the other hand, when Captain Meades arrived, the vessel had been lying in harbour for about 12 days, which would give ample time for any water that might have got into the vessel to drain off through the sand, and would account for his finding the ballast dry and hard, the vessel down to her ballast line, and the lower part of it quite undisturbed. In this way only can we reconcile these apparently conflicting statements; and if this be the correct explanation of the facts, the vessel's unmanageableness could not have been due to the condition of the ballast; nor, as we have already stated, does it appear to us that it was due to any defect in the steering gear. in our opinion the unmanageable condition of the vessel was due partly to the violence of the gale, partly to her being light, and at best only a slow sailer, and to her flat bottom, all of which would fully account for her not readily answering her helm.

The seventh question which we are asked is, "Was the " vessel navigated with proper and seamanlike care and " skill?" The fact that the vessel was able to withstand the storm of the 29th and 30th of October, the exceptional character of which is fully established, with the loss only of her mizen gaff, is sufficient proof that she was managed with proper and seamanlike care and skill, no very easy task with a vessel so light as she was, and with such indifferent sailing and steering qualities.

This brings us to the eighth question, "Was she justifiably abandoned?" The vessel, when they abandoned her, was, as we have seen, almost wholly uninjured, having lost only her mizen gaff; she had also, according to the master's own admission, only a foot to 15 inches of water in her, and as the fact proved she was not making any water, for when picked up by the Belgian pilot on the following morning she had still only about a foot of water in her; there was also always a chance of the gale abating, in which case they might have got her under control, and worked her off the shore; and there was also the chance that she might fall in with a pilot, who would have taken her into Flushing roads, for she was nearing the pilot's cruising ground when she had got inside the North Hinder; and as a last resort she might have dropped her anchors when she got near the shore, and have lain there until assistance came to her. As a matter of fact, too, had they remained by their vessel till the morning, they would have fallen in with the Belgian pilot, who ultimately boarded her. and have been taken safely into Flushing Harbour. On the other hand, it was a dark winter's night, and they had from seven to eight hours of darkness before them; the wind was blowing a whole gale from the N.W., driving them directly on a lee shore, and their vessel was unmanageable. Whilst, therefore, we think that the abandonment was made somewhat too hastily, we are not able too say that it was under the circumstances unjustifiable.

The ninth question is, "Is the owner to blame for the " condition in which the vessel was sent to sea?" The vessel, as we have seen, had a high class, and was sent to sea in a thoroughly good and seaworthy condition; and although her sailing and steering qualities may not have been very good, she was in other respects an excellent vessel. The ballast, too, which she had on board was that usually supplied to vessels leaving Portsmouth Harbour, and so far as appears it has been used by Mr. Crampton and others for a great number of years without any loss having resulted therefrom. Under these circumstances we cannot think that the owner was in any way to blame for the condition in which the vessel was sent to sea.

The tenth and last question which we are asked is, " Are the master and the mate, or either of them, to " blame for abandoning the vessel?" and if so, ought the Court to deal with their certificates? As we have just said, whilst we are of opinion that the master and mate abandoned their vessel somewhat too hastily, we think that under the circumstances there is sufficient excuse for them to justify us in not dealing with their certificates.

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

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

 

 

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

HY. HARRIS,

Assessors.

 

 

A. RONALDSON,

 

L 367. 640. 200.-1/81. Wt. 47. E. & S.