Wreck Report for 'Briton', 1882

(No. 1328.)

"BRITON."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Maryport on the 24th, 25th, and 27th of March 1882, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captains MURDOCH and PARISH, and Rear Admiral MORESBY, R.N., as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the loss of the British sailing ship "BRITON," of Whitehaven, and of the lives of her crew of 4 hands, off Maryport, on the 13th of February last, whilst on a voyage from Portaferry to Whitehaven.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed, that the loss of the said vessel "Briton" was due to her having come into collision with the steam tug "Florence" when attempting to enter Maryport Harbour on the night in question, and to her having been thereby driven on to the North Bank, and that Robert Mounsey, the master of the "Florence," is to blame for the collision in having attempted to pass inside of and on the starboard side of the "Briton."

The Court further finds that John Webster, the coxswain of the Maryport lifeboat, and William Johnston, the acting harbour master, are to blame for not having launched the lifeboat, when they knew that there had been a collision in the channel, and that in all probability the vessel struck would have gone ashore in a damaged state.

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

Dated the 27th day of March 1882.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

J. MORESBY,

 

 

 

ALEX. MURDOCH,

Assessors.

 

 

ALFRED PARISH,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Maryport on the 24th, 25th, and 27th days of March last, when Mr. Howard Smith appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Musgrave for a part owner of the "Briton," and for the representatives of the deceased master and crew, and Mr. Webster for the Maryport Steam Shipping Company, Limited, the owners of the tug "Florence," and for the master thereof. Twenty-three witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Howard Smith handed in a statement of the questions on which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Musgrave and Mr. Webster were then heard on behalf of their respective parties, and Mr. Howard Smith having replied for the Board of Trade, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions on which its opinion had been asked. The facts of the case are as follow:—

The "Briton" was a small brig built of wood, belonging to the Port of Whitehaven, of 85 tons gross and 76 tons net register. She was built at Maryport in the year 1838, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. James Gaw, of Kirkcubbin, in the county of Down, Ireland, and another person, Mr. Gaw being the owner of 63/64th parts, and at the same time the master and, apparently, managing owner thereof. She left Kirkcubbin on the 4th of February last bound to Whitehaven, with a crew of 4 hands all told, and having on board a cargo of twenty tons of stone ballast, 11 tons 8 cwt. of potatoes, and about 5 1/2 tons of hay, which she seems to have taken in at Portaferry. At daylight of the 13th she was found sunk on a bank immediately to the north of the entrance to Maryport Harbour, broken up and a complete wreck. And as all hands would seem to have perished, this inquiry has been ordered with a view to ascertain if possible how she was lost.

Now the first question which we are asked is, "What was the vessel the steam tug "Florence" came into collision with on the morning of the 13th of February last?" And to enable us to answer it, it will be necessary to state what took place in and at the entrance to the Harbour of Maryport on that morning.

Maryport Harbour is formed by two stone piers, and has a jetty running out for about 700 feet from the end of the south pier, supported upon wooden piles. At the extremity of the stone portion of the south pier, and before entering on the wooden jetty, a light is exhibited as soon as there are 8 feet of water in the harbour, as a signal to vessels that they may enter. On the morning of the 13th, Beck was the harbour boatman in charge of the light; and he has told us that he lighted it at 4 a.m., the tide being then 4 hours flood; and that shortly afterwards he observed off Flimby two bright lights, which is a signal that a tug is required. At this time Brown, the acting mate of the steam tug "Florence," was on the look out with him. Now the "Florence" is an iron paddle wheel steamer of 117 tons gross, and 25 tons net register, and is fitted with engines of 70 horse power. She belongs to the Maryport Steam Shipping Company, Limited, and is regularly employed to tow vessels in and out of the harbour, On seeing the signal, Brown at once went down to the tug, and informed captain Mounsey, the master, that there was a vessel approaching the harbour, and in want of a tug; upon which preparations were at once made to proceed out to her assistance. She got under way at about 20 minutes after 4, and proceeded down the harbour at full speed; but when abreast of the tide light the engines were eased, as it was blowing a hard gale from about S.S.W. to S.W. by S,, and there was a heavy sea breaking outside, and it was not deemed prudent to run into it at too great a speed. When, however, they had got about half way down the jetty, the vessel being then in about mid channel, with her head somewhat inclined towards the jetty, a red light was observed about a point on the starboard bow, upon which, the master, who was at the wheel, at once ordered the engines to be put "full speed "astern," but without, as he tells us, altering the vessel's helm, either to port or to starboard, and the engines had not made more than five or six revolutions astern, when the two vessels came together, the stem and starboard bow of the "Florence" striking the other vessel on the port bow. The result, as the master of the "Florence" has told us, was to throw the other vessel's head up into the wind, and the steam tug continuing to go astern, the two vessels soon separated, but in doing so the jibboom or bowsprit of the other vessel caught the steam tug's fore stay, and pulled her mast over the bows. As soon as the vessels were clear, the master of the "Florence" gave orders to turn ahead, but was then informed by the engineer that the starboard wheel would not go ahead. He then ordered him to turn astern, which they were able to do, and by backing now one wheel and now the other, they succeeded in getting her in between the piers, when the harbour becoming wider they managed by turning the port wheel full speed ahead, and by backing the starboard wheel to get the vessel's head round, and she returned to her berth. On proceeding to examine the starboard wheel it was then found that the wire rigging had become entangled with it, and the master accordingly at once gave orders to clear it, but this we are told took them from an hour to an hour and a half to do. In the mean time vessels had been making for the harbour, and exhibiting two bright lights as a signal for a tug, but finding that no tug came out to them, they attempted to sail into the harbour. The first to make the attempt was the "John," but a sea striking her on the bow, she fell off and went on to the North Bank, about a quarter of a mile to the northward of the entrance. This was at about 10 minutes or a quarter to 5. At about 5 o'clock another vessel, the "North Branch," attempted to enter; but she also failed, and finding that she was drifting past the entrance she dropped her anchor, and brought up off the end of the north pier. About 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour afterwards a third vessel, the "Ottawa," attempted to enter; but a sea striking her on the starboard bow she fell off, and passing very near to the "North Branch," ran on the bank at a short distance only from the north pier. At about 6 o'clock the "North Branch," which had been brought up off the end of the north pier, parted her cable, and in running away to leeward she passed within 30 or 40 yards of a vessel, which had only one of her masts standing, and whose crew were in the rigging calling for assistance. The "North Branch" however could give them no assistance, as she was in danger of striking at any moment; fortunately however, it being high water, she passed clear over the North Bank, and then ran down towards the Solway Light. Soon after this the "Florence" had got her starboard paddle clear, and she proceeded out to sea again, with a view to assist any vessels that might require her services. She saw the lights of the "John" and "Ottawa" on the bank, but could not get near tham; and seeing no other lights about and no signals for a tug, she returned into port again. There was one other vessel, the "Allies," which attempted to get into the harbour that morning, but she got jammed against the northern pier, and remained there till the following day. These then, so far as we know, are the only vessels which attempted to enter the harbour that morning, namely the "John," the "Ottawa," the "Allies," the "North Branch," aud to these we may add the "Briton." Neither of the first four named vessels had any collision with any other vessel, but the "Briton," on being examined, was found to have had a portion of her stem knocked away, and the bolts forced over from port to starboard, very much as if she had been struck by some other vessel on the port bow; and as we are told that the collision between the "Florence" and the other vessel was by the stem and starboard bow of the "Florence" striking the other vessel on the port bow, the heads of both vessels angling at the same time towards the jetty, it is only fair to assume that it must have been with the "Briton" that the "Florence" came into collision on that morning.

The second question which we are asked is, "On going down channel, did the master of the 'Florence' keep on the proper side?" The 21st Article of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea is in these words:—"In narrow channels every steamship shall, " when it is safe and practicable, keep to that side of " the fairway or mid-channel which lies on the star " board side of such ship." It was therefore the duty of the "Florence," in going down the channel, to keep to the starboard side of mid-channel. Of course, if the way was quite clear, she could keep to whatever side of the channel she pleased; but if she does not keep on the starboard side, she does it at her own risk. In this case it is admitted that she was going down mid-channel, with her head inclined somewhat towards the jetty, and that on seeing the "Briton's" light she made no attempt to get to the starboard side of the mid-channel; and it is clear, therefore, that she was not on her proper side.

The third question which we are asked is, "Was a proper look out kept on board the 'Florence'?" it seems that there were two men forward on the look out, besides the captain's son, and that the captain himself was at the wheel, which was forward of the paddle boxes. Moreover they had only just left the harbour to go and pick up any vessels that might require to be towed into harbour. The presumption therefore would seem to be that there was a good look out being kept on board the "Florence" at the time. It is said however that, if so, they must have seen the green light of the "Briton" as she rounded the pier before entering the channel. How this may be it is not easy to say; possibly however the attention of those on board the "Florence" may have been directed to the lights of the vessel, to whose assistance they were going, and which would be seen away to the southward throught the piles of the jetty; or perhaps the "Briton" might have rounded the pier, and was in the channel with her head angling towards the jetty before the "Florence" came in sight, and in that case her red light only would be visible.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "Was the master of the 'Florence' justified in directing those on the vessel approaching to starboard their helm?" It is clear from the evidence of the witnesses on board the "Florence" that when the two vessels sighted one another each was angling in towards the jetty, and that the stem and starboard bow of the "Florence" struck the port bow of the "Briton." Under these circumstances it would have been quite wrong for the "Briton" to have starboarded her helm, so as to pass to the starboard of and outside the "Florence." Mounsey, the master of the "Florence," stated that the reason why he hailed her to do so, was, because there was more water outside of him; but if there was water outside of him for the "Briton" there would have been water enough for the "Florence," and he ought there?? fore to have ported his helm and gone outside. We think therefore that there was no justification for the master of the "Florence" hailing the "Briton" to starboard her helm.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Did the master of the 'Florence' duly comply with Article 17 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea?" The 17th Article is in these terms:—"If two ships, One " of which is a sailing ship, and the other a steam ship " are proceeding in such directions as to involve risk of a " collision, the steam ship shall keep out of the way of " the sailing ship." It was therefore the duty of the steam tug to keep out of the way of the sailing ship, but this she failed to do, and the master of the "Florence" has therefore not complied with the 17th Article of the regulations.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "Was the 'Florence' navigated with proper and seamanlike care?" When the master of the "Florence" saw the "Briton's" red light about a point upon his starboard bow he must have known that she had her port side towards him, and seeing, as he has told us, that the light was getting more ahead of him, he must also have known that it was crossing him from starboard to port, and that she was edging in towards the jetty; and to have attempted under these circumstances to cut her out from the jetty was a most improper and unseamanlike act. In the Sailing Directions for the West Coast of England, at page 201, it is said that in entering Mary. port Harbour you are to "keep the light on the head of " the wooden jetty on the starboard hand, then pass " close along the jetty, and afterwards between the red " and green lights (which are 150 feet apart) into the " inner harbour." Brown, also, the mate of the " Florence," told us that it is the practice for vessels entering the harbour to luff up on rounding the pier head, and to get as near as possible to the jetty. This, in fact, seems to have been what the "Briton" was doing, when the master of the "Florence" attempted to cut her out from the jetty and to go inside of her. What the master of the "Florence" should have done when he saw the red light of the "Briton" heading towards the jetty, was to have ported his helm and gone outside of her; and if in passing they had touched one another it would only have been a glancing blow, which would probably not have done any harm, and the effect of which would have been to throw the "Briton" somewhat nearer to the jetty, and give her a better chance of getting into the harbour. If too the "Florence" had, by porting her helm, touched the North Bank, seeing that the tide was rising, and, as the master has stated, very rapidly, she would no doubt, having the use of her engines, have come off again at once. In our opinion, therefore, the "Florence" was not navigated with proper and seamanlike care.

The seventh question which we are asked is, "What was the cause of the collision, and is the master of the 'Florence' to blame for it?" The cause of the coliision was the attempt of the master of the "Florence to cut inside the "Briton" and to pass down on her starboard side, and which he had no right to do, seeing that she had her red light towards him, and was evidently edging in for the jetty; and for this the master of the "Florence" is to blame.

The eighth question which we are asked is, "After the collision did the master of the 'Florence' fail to comply with the provisions of the 16th section of the 36th and 37th Vict. cap. 85?" That section is in these words:—"In every case of a collision between two " vessels it shall be the duty of the master or person in " charge of each vessel, if and so far as he can do so " without danger to his own vessel, crew, and passengers " (if any), to stay by the other vessel till he has ascer " tained that he has no need of further assistance." We were told by the master and mate of the "Florence" that the collision was of the most trifling description, and that the damage done to the steamboat was repaired at a cost of two or three shillings; on the other hand the engineer and one of the able seamen told us that it had been a "sharp blow"; and a sharp blow from the stem of an iron vessel against the bow of an old wooden one was not unlikely to cause very serious damage, not indeed to the iron stem, but to the wooden vessel. And that it did so is proved by the condition in which the "Briton" was afterwards found, with a portion of her stem knocked away and her port bow smashed in. Nor should it be forgotten that, even assuming that the "Florence" had been brought nearly to a state of rest before the collision, the speed of the "Briton" would not have been reduced, so that the force with which they would come together would be great; and it therefore behoved the master of the "Florence," if he could have done so with safety to the vessel and those on board her, to stay by her until he had ascertained whether she was in need of assistance or not. At the same time it must be remembered that the "Florence's" starboard wheel was disabled and could not be made to turn ahead, and under these circumstances, and considering the state of the weather, it appears to us that it was the master's duty to get her into port with as little delay as possible. It was said, indeed, that she might have lowered her boat, but the master has told us that his boat, which was only a small one, could not have lived in such a sea; and it may well be doubted whether, with a crew of only 7 hands, of whom two if not three belonged to the engine room, he would have been justified in so doing, with his vessel in the disabled state in which she was.

The ninth question which we are asked is, "After the collision did the master of the 'Florence' take prompt measures to inform the harbour master that the 'Florence' had been in collision with a vessel; and, generally, did he take prompt measures to ascertain what, if any, damage had been sustained by the said vessel, and whether her crew were in need of any and what assistance?" According to the master of the "Florence" he did on returning up the harbour hail Beck, the harbour boatman, and inform him that he had been in collision with another vessel. Beck denies this; but be this as it may, it is clear that within five minutes of his getting back to his berth, Mr. Johnston, the acting harbour master, came alongside, and gave the master of the tug a hand to help him on the quay; and that he then told Mr. Johnston that he had been in collision with a vessel in the entrance to the harbour, that his starboard wheel was disabled, and that he was trying to clear it. This being so, it would then rest with the harbour master to take such steps as might be necessary to ascertain whether the other vessel had sustained serious damage, and whether her crew were in need of assistance; and it was obviously the duty of the master of the "Florence" to get his vessel into working order again, so that she might be in a state to go out with as little delay as possible to the assistance of the many vessels which were making for the harbour.

The tenth question which we are asked is, "What, in the opinion of the Court, was the cause of the loss of the 'Briton' and of the lives of her crew?" The loss of the "Briton" was no doubt due to her collision with the "Florence," the effect of which would be to knock her head up into the wind, and to put her sails aback, and, as a matter of course, she must then go on to the North Bank. Apart, however, from this it is clear, from the condition in which she was afterwards found, that she must have sustained so much damage about the bows that she must have very soon filled and sunk. This must have been at about half-past 4 o'clock. At 6 the same morning, when the "North Branch" passed her, she had still one mast standing, and the crew were in the rigging, calling for assistance. When it was that this mast went there is nothing to shew, but it had gone when it had become sufficiently light to make her out from the shore. But from half-past 4 to 6 the crew were still on board, and had any assistance gone to them during this time, in all likelihood they would have been saved.

This then brings us to the eleventh question, which is, "Having regard to the state of the weather, and to the fact that the 'Florence' had been in collision with a sailing ship, were those who had the direction and control of the lifeboat justified in neglecting to send, or to attempt to send it to the assistance of the crews of the vessels that were ashore on the North Bank, and, in the opinion of the Court, is any person to blame, and who, for this default?" it seems that besides the lights of the "John," the "Ottawa," and the "North Branch," which had lights up for a steam tug, a red light, which could only be that of the "Briton," was seen, for some time before it finally disappeared, by Mr. Johnston, the acting harbour master, by Beck, the harbour boatman, and Webster, the first coxswain of the lifeboat, and by others. Beck told us that he believed the vessel from which it came was in danger, and that he so informed Mr. Baylis, one of the then acting deputy harbour masters, but who has unfortunately since died, and that Webster was standing by at the time. Now it appears to be the practice at Maryport never to send out the lifeboat to any vessel on the North Bank unless some signal of distress is put up, forgetting that the vessel might be in such a state that it might not be possible for her crew to exhibit any signal of distress. They justify that practice on the ground that vessels frequently go, during a gale of wind, upon the North Bank, and are seldom or ever known to break up before the tide has fallen, so as to allow the crews to walk ashore. Seeing, however, these lights upon the North Bank, and knowing that there had been a collision at the entrance to the harbour, and that the steam tug was disabled, it is to be regretted that the lifeboat was not sent out to see whether they were in need of assistance, the more so, as we are told that it could have been done without any risk or difficulty; and the question which we are asked is, with whom the responsibility for this neglect rests. According to Mr. Eckersley, the local secretary to the National Lifeboat Association, there are four keys of the boathouse, one of which is in his own possession; another in the possession of John Webster, the first coxswain; a third in that of John Benn, the second coxswain; and a fourth hangs up in the harbour master's office. Mr. Eckersley was at home, and knew nothing of the circumstances until after daylight; John Benn, we know, knew nothing about it; but Mr. Johnston, the acting harbour master, and John Webster, were out and saw the lights, and knew all the circumstances of the case. What then was it their duty to do? The sixth Article of the Lifeboat Regulations is in these words:—"As at each lifeboat station " there will be a local committee, the coxswain will " act under their immediate directions, and the boat, " except in case of wreck or other disaster, is never to " be taken afloat without their sanction;" and the 14th Article is as follows:—"Immediately on intimation " of a wreck, or of a vessel in distress, the coxswain is " to use his utmost exertions to assemble his crew, " launch the boat, and proceed to her assistance." It would seem then that it was the duty of John Webster, the first coxswain, who is a paid officer of the institution, knowing that there had been a collision, and seeing a red light on the North Bank, which he could not make out, to launch the lifeboat and proceed out to her assistance. Some responsibility also attaches to Mr. Johnston, the acting harbour master of Maryport, who, as his superior officer, and as a member of the local committee, should have ordered Webster to man the lifeboat and to go out, and it is much to be regretted that that was not done.

The twelfth question which we are asked is, "Is the master of the 'Florence,' or is any one else, and who, to blame for the loss of the 'Briton,' and the loss of her crew?" The master of the "Florence" is no doubt to blame for the loss of the "Briton," for had he not collided with her there is every reason to believe that she would have got into the harbour safely. But he is not to blame for the loss of the lives of her crew; the responsibility for that must rest with those who neglected to send out the lifeboat during the hour and a half that the crew were in the rigging calling for assistance. We do not mean to say that the cries of these unfortunate men were heard from the shore, indeed they do not seem to have been heard from the "Ottawa" which was much nearer to them; but under the circumstances the lifeboat ought to have gone out, and for the neglect to send her out Mr. Johnston and Webster are, in our opinion, to blame. We are also asked by the learned counsel for the Board of Trade to say whether blame attaches to Mr. Hutchings the chief officer of the coastguard at Maryport, but in our opinion it does not; Mr. Hutchings was not called on that morning by Webster until about half-past six o'clock, when he immediately went down to the north pier, and seeing something fluttering on the wreck, which one of the persons there thought was a man waving a flag, he at once ordered the lifeboat to be manned, but before it could be got out it was light enough to see that it was only a bit of canvas, and that there was no living thing remaining on board. No blame therefore attaches to him, and there can be little doubt that all must have perished when the last mast fell, and that occurred before Mr. Hutchings was on the spot.

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

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

J. MORESBY,

 

 

ALEX. MURDOCH,

Assessors.

 

 

ALPRED PARISH,

 

L 367. 1098. 150.—4/82. Wt. 171. E. & S.