Wreck Report for 'Lady Maxwell', 1881

(No. 1073.)

"LADY MAXWELL" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of a formal Investigation held at St. George's Hall, in the City of Liverpool, on the 9th, 10th, and 11th days of August 1881, before HORATIO MANSFIELD, Esquire, assisted by Captains PARFITT and ANDERSON, Assessors, into the circumstances attending the stranding of the British steamship "LADY MAXWELL," of Liverpool, on the 1st July 1881.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances attending the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons stated in the annex hereto, that the "Lady Maxwell" was stranded by the default of the master, Mr. Arthur O'Leary, in steering an unsafe and improper course, and suspends his certificate for six calendar months.

Dated this 11th day of August 1881.

 

(Signed)

H. MANSFIELD, Judge.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

WM. PARFITT,

Assessors.

 

 

A. ANDERSON,

 

Annex to the Report.

The "Lady Maxwell" is a screw steamer, built in Ireland, and registered in Liverpool in 1874, her official number 65,948, of gross tonnage 361.63, and registered tonnage 268.00. She had two inverted direct common engines of 60 horse-power combined. She was owned by Mr. Peter M'Guffie, of Brunswick Street, Liverpool, and had been regularly employed in the coasting trade and in short foreign voyages. Though an old ship she was a strong one, and in fairly good condition. She had been swung and her compasses adjusted at Birkenhead before her last voyage. On the 30th of June last she left Liverpool, bound for Workington, with about twelve tons of bunker coals, which served as ballast. Her draft was 8 feet 6 inches aft, and 6 feet 10 inches forward. She was commanded by Mr. Arthur O'Leary, who holds a certificate of competency, No. 30,162. He had been strongly recommended to the owner, who entertained a high opinion of him; and on entering into their service he made a pecuniary engagement with them which partook of the character of a security on his part, whilst it gave him an interest up to a certain amount in the profit or loss of the voyages of the vessel when under his command. She was insured, but somewhat below her estimated value. The crew were 13 hands all told, and the son of the master was on board as a passenger.

The "Lady Maxwell" left Liverpool at 2 p.m. on the 30th of June last; the weather was fine, but with a falling barometer. She passed the Bar light-ship at 4 p.m. and proceeded towards Morecambe Bay Light, her course being N. by E. and the wind S.S.W. The only sail set was the square foresail. At about half-past 6 o'clock she was abreast of the Morecambe Bay lightship, at a distance of not more than a mile on her port side. The tide had been ebbing and against her, but was then nearly low water, the wind gradually increasing with rain. At this time her course was between N. by E. and N. 1/2 E., but about half-past 8 o'clock she was put back on her original course of N. by E. by the master's order. The weather was hazy and the breeze was freshening, and soon after this the vessel must have been within the influence of the flood stream setting on her port bow. The patent log had been set at the Bar lightship, and was examined at the Morecambe Bay lightship, shewing 19 1/2 miles. Full speed, about 7 knots, was kept up. At some time between half-past 10 and 11, a light was seen on the starboard bow, bearing N.E. by N.; it seemed to be well up. The master computed his position to be 5 miles off from the St. Bees Light, and says that he believed the light which he saw to be St. Bees Light, though at the same time he states that it was so dark that it was impossible to determine the distance from the light. At 11 p.m. the engines were stopped and a cast of the lead taken, which gave 9 fathoms. The vessel proceeded on the same course at full speed. At 12 o'clock, orders were given to take in sail; the lead was cast and gave 9 fathoms. Shortly afterwards the port anchor was let go and the engines were put at half speed, when it became evident that the anchor was dragging, and the starboard anchor was let go with no better result. The vessel almost immediately struck the beach with her stem and then swung round. It was high water at 1.30; and soon after the ebb set in she was left high and dry on the beach. No lives were lost; the men walked on shore. The wreck has since been sold, but, as it would seem, rather on account of the expense and risk of getting her off than of the damage caused by the disaster.

In the evidence there are many serious discrepancies and much which cannot be explained. The evidence respecting the light alleged to have been taken for the St. Bees Head Light is most unsatisfactory. The witnesses lost sight of it soon after 11 o'clock, and never saw it again, thence it is clear that if the vessel had rounded St. Bees Head and was in nine fathoms water, she must, according to their hypothesis, have been somewhere between St. Bees and Whitehaven, and that both lights must have been seen by them.

It further appears that the entries in the log are not trustworthy with reference to the incidents which led to the stranding of the vessel.

After the evidence had been heard, Mr. Paxton, for the Board of Trade, asked the opinion of the Court upon the following questions:—

Mr. Collins appeared for the owner and the master.

1. What was the cause of the stranding of the vessel?

2. At what distance was the Morecambe Bay lightvessel passed; whether a safe and proper course was set and steered therefrom, and whether due and proper allowance was made for tide and currents, especially having regard to the fact that the vessel was in ballast?

3. Whether any, and if so, what alteration was made in the course thereafter, and if made, whether such alteration was a proper one?

4. Whether when the weather became thick the speed of the vessel was promptly and sufficiently reduced, and whether proper measures were then taken to ascertain and verify the position of the vessel?

5. Whether the lead was used with sufficient frequency, and whether proper measures were taken to ascertain the distance run?

6. Whether proper measures were taken to verify the position of the vessel when the light was seen about 11 p.m.

7. Whether the master was justified in assuming that the light then seen was St. Bees Head Light, and whether from the calculations made thereafter he was justified in assuming that his vessel was to the northward of St. Bees Head?

8. Whether, having regard to the state of the weather and the condition of the vessel, the master was justified in attempting to come to an anchor?

9. Whether, when the master found the anchors were not holding, he took all proper and reasonable measures to prevent the vessel driving ashore?

10. What was the light seen at and after 11 p.m., and if such light was a railway light or light from a house on the cliff; whether it is. or whether any other lights at or in the vicinity of Seascale are calculated to interfere with the safe and proper navigation of vessels along that coast?

11. Whether the vessel was navigated with proper and seamanlike care?

12. Was the stranding and subsequent loss of or serious damage done to the vessel caused by any wrongful act or default of the master in regard to any of the above matters?

Mr. Paxton stated that the Board of Trade were of opinion that the master's certificate should be dealt with.

1. With regard to the first question, the Court is of opinion that the "Lady Maxwell" was stranded on the morning of the 1st July by reason of her anchors dragging at a time when there was a strong wind and heavy sea, and in an exposed position where there was no good holding ground.

2. According to the evidence the "Lady Maxwell" passed the Morecame Bay light-vessel at a distance of about a mile; the course which was at that time being steered, N. 1/2 E., was not a safe and proper one, as it does not appear that any allowance was made for the tide, such as a careful navigator was bound to make, more especially as the wind and sea were both setting the vessel to leeward and she was in very light trim. It seems that at one time in the vicinity of the Morecambe Bay light-vessel there was some apprehension that the vessel was making too much leeway, and for a short time the course was slightly altered, but enough was not done to enable the vessel to round St. Bees. If the course steered had been made good she would have rounded St. Bees at a distance of about a mile and a half. Considering the state of the weather the greatest caution ought to have been exercised to prevent the vessel getting at all to leeward.

3. About two hours after passing Morecambe Bay light-ship the master altered the course from N. 1/2 E. to N. by E., which was a still more improper one than the course she had been on before.

4. The Court is of opinion that though the weather was cloudy and dark, with rain at times, that it was not so thick as to render it necessary to reduce the speed of the vessel, (5th) but had the master, after he had at about 11 o'clock found that he was in 9 fathoms water, examined the patent log, he would have discovered that he had mistaken his position, and, by hauling the vessel off, would have no doubt (6th) soon made out St. Bees Light, which was then shut in, and have been able to put his vessel in perfect safety.

7. So far from the master being justified in assuming that the light seen was St. Bees Light, the Court is of opinion that every reasonable consideration ought to have led him to the opposite conclusion. Had he really known the distance which he had run, or had he considered the elevation at which the St. Bees Light is fixed, he must have perceived that the light which he professes to have seen on shore could not have been the light on St. Bees Head. The mere fact of his not seeing the Whitehaven Lights ought to have led him to hesitate in concluding that he was to the north of St. Bees Head.

8 and 9. The master in his evidence describes the weather and the sea to have been very heavy, and it is clear that neither of them were abating at the time he stowed his foresail. If the weather was such as he describes it to have been, it was most injudicious to anchor. When it was found that the anchors were dragging, and the beach being distinctly visible, the master only kept the engines at half speed, which did not appear to produce any effect. it was no doubt in his power, and there was sufficient time, to put them at full speed, and the vessel might have been extricated from her dangerous position.

10, With regard to the light on shore alleged to have been seen by the master and other witnesses, there is no evidence that it could have been a railway light All the railway lamps were being repaired, and there being no night traffic on that line it is most improbable that there could have been shown any light that night at or about the station.

It is said there are some small houses on the cliff at Seascale, from the upper windows of which lights may be seen occasionally; there is no evidence to show that the upper rooms of those houses were occupied or lights used in them on the night in question, but, be that as it may, it is inconceivable that an experienced navigator should mistake a solitary light in a bedchamber for the powerful first-class light on St. Bees Head. There is no evidence of the existence of any light on the coast in question likely to interfere with the navigation.

11 and 12. For the reasons above stated the Court is of opinion that the "Lady Maxwell" was not navigated with proper and seamanlike care. The master steered a course, which in the trim of the vessel, the state of the sea, the force of the wind, and the time and direction of the tide, was at least a very dangerous one. He did not make due allowance for those forces, and the result was that he got his vessel into a very perilous position. Even then she might have been saved by more prompt and judicious measures.

The Court are of opinion that the stranding was caused by the default of the master, and suspend his certificate for six calendar months.

L367. 843. 150.—8/81. Wt. 203. E. & S.