Wreck Report for 'Buckland' and 'R. W. Boyd', 1882

(No. 1332.)

"BUCKLAND" AND "R. W. BOYD" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Westminster on the 14th and 15th of April 1882, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Vice-Admiral POWELL, C.B., and Captains ANDERSON and HYDE, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the loss of the sailing ship "BUCKLAND," of Rochester, and the loss of the lives of two of her crew through collision with the steamship "R. W. BOYD," of North Shields, in the River Thames on the 4th of March last.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed, that the collision between the steamship "R. W. Boyd" and the barge "Buckland" was due to the negligent navigation of the "R. W. Boyd" by George James Anderson, a waterman engaged by the master to navigate her down as far as Gravesend, and that Andrew Christie, the master of the "R. W. Boyd" is to blame for having given over the charge of his vessel to so unqualified and inexperienced a man as the said George James Anderson.

The Court is not asked to deal with the certificate of the said Andrew Christie, nor to make any order as to costs.

Dated the 15th day of April 1882.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

R. ASHMORE POWELL,

 

 

 

ABSM. ANDERSON,

Assessors.

 

 

GEORGE HYDE.

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 14th and 15th of April instant, when Mr. Mansell Jones appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Farnfield for the owners of the "Buckland," and Mr. Botterill for the owners and master of the "R. W. Boyd." Eight witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Mansell Jones handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Farnfield and Mr. Botterill then addressed the Court on behalf of their respective parties, and Mr. Mansell Jones having been heard in reply, 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 "Buckland" was a small wooden sailing barge, belonging to the Port of Rochester, of 47 tons gross and 42 tons net register. She was built at Frindsbury, in the county of Kent, in the year 1875, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. Charles Tuff, of Rochester, barge owner. She left Fulham on the 3rd of March last for the Port of Rochester, having on board a cargo of manure, and a crew of 3 hands all told, and at about 9 p.m. the same day brought up on the flood in Woolwich Reach, nearly opposite Charlton Pier. There she remained until about 1.30 a.m. of the following morning, when the tide having begun to ebb, she got under weigh and proceeded down the river. At this time the weather was fine, the night clear and moonlight, and the wind light from about the N.W., there being hardly wind enough to fill her sails. At about 2.30 a.m. she was nearing Gallion's Point at the bottom of Woolwich Reach, and was drifting down with the tide, being, if anything, a little to the north of mid-channel, when she observed the green and mast head lights of a steamer, which was in the lower part of Gallion's Reach, coming up the river, and at about the same time the red and mast head lights of another steamer, which was in the upper part of Woolwich Reach, coming down the river. The two vessels continued to approach, still shewing the green and red lights respectively, and when she was nearly abreast of Gallion's Point, the up-going steamer passed to the southward of her, at a distance of about 50 yards; and almost immediately afterwards the down-going steamer, which proved to be the "R. W. Boyd," was observed to suddenly starboard her helm, and she ran into the "Buckland," striking her on the port quarter, and passing over her sank her with all the hands. There was at the time a barge, called the "Susan," lying at anchor a little higher up the river; and the attention of her crew having been called to the vessels by hearing the steamer's whistle, two of the hands on seeing the collision at once jumped into their boat and pulled to the spot where the barge had sunk, and they succeeded in picking up the captain of the "Buckland," who was then taken on board the "R. W. Boyd," but the other two men were unfortunately drowned. In the meantime, the up-going steamer which had passed before the collision occurred, had gone up the river, and we are told that although every effort has been made to discover her, those efforts have not proved successful.

On the other hand, the story told by the "R.W. Boyd" is as follows:—She is an iron screw steamship, belonging to North Shields, of 1307 tons gross, and 840 tons net register, and is fitted with engines of 115 horse power. She was built at South Shields in the year 1880, and at the time of the casualty, which forms the subject of the present inquiry, she was the property of Mr. John Wilson, of 37, Duke Street, North Shields, and others, Mr. John Wilson being the managing owner. She left Sebastopol with a cargo of about 1600 tons of rye, and a crew of 19 hands all told, her destination at first being Rotterdam. When off Dover, however, the destination was altered to Bremerhaven, and not having a sufficient quantity of coal on board she had to put into Dover Harbour to obtain a fresh supply, and there met with some accident, which obliged her to go to London for repairs. Having repaired her damages, she left Millwall Dock for Bremerhaven at about 1.30 a.m. of the 4th of March last, at the top of high water, and proceeded down the river at various speeds, the master and a person named George James Anderson, a waterman, who had been engaged to navigate the vessel down to Gravesend, being on the upper bridge, the chief mate on the top gallant forecastle forward, the second mate aft, and two able seamen at the wheel, which was on the fore part of the lower bridge. The weather, as I have already said, was fine, the night clear and moonlight, and there was very little wind. At about 2 30 a.m. she had arrived in Woolwich Reach, and was between the Railway Pier and the Arsenal Jetty, and to the south of mid-channel, when Anderson observed the green and masthead lights of a steamer, which was in the lower part of Gallion's Reach, and was coming up the river, about a point or so on his port bow, upon which he ordered the helm to be slightly starboarded, which brought the green light of the up-coming steamer on to their starboard bow. At about the same time the "Buckland" was seen upon the port bow, but the alteration of the "R. W. Boyd's" helm brought her, according to Anderson, nearly ahead; according to the master, a little on their starboard bow. Shortly afterwards, we are told, two blasts were heard from the up-coming steamer, which they understood to mean that she was directing her course to port, and meant to pass them starboard side to starboard side; upon which two blasts were returned from the "R. W. Boyd," and the helm was kept to starboard. The two vessels were thus green light to green light, and were apparently intending to pass starboard side to starboard side, when we are told that the red light of the up-coming steamer suddenly came in view, and she appeared to be bearing directly down upon their starboard side; upon which, according to Anderson, he at once ordered the engines to be stopped and reversed full speed astern, and the helm to be put hard a-starboard; but according to the master, when the engines were stopped and reversed full speed, the helm was ordered to be hard a-ported. Anderson said that he did not remember giving the order to port, but he was not prepared to say that he had not done so; but however that may be, it is clear from the evidence of the two men who were at the wheel, that the "R. W. Boyd's" helm was hard a-ported, and that this and the reversing full speed astern had the effect of canting the vessel's head to starboard, and the "Buckland" being at the time a little on her starboard bow, the "R. W. Boyd," before the way could be taken off her, came with her stem against the "Buckland's" port quarter, with the results which have been already detailed.

These then being the facts of the case, the first question which we are asked is, "Whether a good and proper look-out was kept on board the "R. W. Boyd" and the "Buckland." In this respect no blame seems to attach to either party. The "Buckland" saw the lights of the up-coming steamer and of the "R. W. Boyd" at about the same time, when the former was in the lower part of Gallion's Reach. and the "R. W. Boyd" in the upper part of Woolwich Reach; she must therefore have been keeping a good and proper look-out. The "R. W. Boyd" seems to have seen the lights of the up-coming steamer when she was herself between the Railway Pier and the Arsenal Jetty in Woolwich Reach, the other vessel being at the time in the lower part of Gallion's Reach; and at about the same time she saw the "Buckland," which was then nearing Gallion's Point. She therefore must also have been keeping a good and proper look out.

The second question upon which our opinion is asked is, "Whether the 'R. W. Boyd' was justified in attempting to pass the approaching steamer on the starboard hand?" According to Anderson, who seems to have had the sole charge of the navigation of the vessel, he starboarded his helm almost immediately on seeing the other steamer's green light, and the reason which he gave us for so doing was because he saw that she was keeping the south shore. It will be observed that at this time the "R. W. Boyd" was to the south of mid-channel, and the object therefore of his starboarding his helm at that time must have been to bring his vessel either into mid-channel or to the north of midchannel so as to pass the other vessel starboard side to starboard side. Now, was Anderson justified in taking this course? In our opinion he was not. The "R. W. Boyd," it is admitted, was at the time going down the river to the south of mid-channel, and if the other steamer, which was coming up, was also to the south of mid-channel, then, if they had continued their respective courses, there would have been a risk of collision, and in that case the 22nd article of the Rules and Byelaws for the Regulation of the Navigation of the River Thames would apply, which says:—"When two steam " vessels, proceeding in opposite directions, the one up " and the other down the river, are approaching one " another so as to involve risk of collision, they shall " pass one another port side to port side." Here, the "R. W. Boyd," seeing another steam vessel coming up, as she believed on the south shore, she herself being at the time to the south of mid-channel, starboards her helm so as to pass her starboard side to starboard side, instead of which she ought to have kept on the south side, so that they might have passed port side to port side. This is on the assumption that the up-coming steamer was to the south of mid-channel; if, however, she was in mid-channel, or to the northward thereof, the starboarding the "R. W. Boyd's" helm at that time would be still more unjustifiable, seeing that it would have the effect of throwing her across the path of the up-coming steamer, and bring about the chance of collision; when, if they had kept on their respective courses, they would have passed clear port side to port side. The Court has no doubt whatever that the starboarding the helm of the "R. W. Boyd," as soon as she saw the lights of the other steamer so as to pass her on the starboard side, was an improper act; and, if it had had any doubt, the case of the "Odessa," recently decided by the Appeal Court, and reported in the Law Times of the 6th ultimo, would settle the question, for the marginal note to that case is in these words:—"When two " vessels are proceeding in such directions that their " respective courses, if continued, will bring them so " near each other as to cause a risk of collision, rule 22 " of the Thames Conservancy Rules is imperative, and " both vessels must so manœuvre as to pass port side " to port side." The "R. W. Boyd" then by starboarding as she did to pass the approaching steam vessel on the starboard hand, acted improperly, and in so doing violated the 22nd article of the Rules for the Navigation of the Thames.

The third question upon which our opinion is asked is, "Whether the 'R. W. Boyd' complied with the Rules and Bye-laws for the Regulation of the Navigation of the Navigation of the River Thames, confirmed by Order in Council, dated the 18th of March 1880, and more especially with rules 14, 16, 17, 21, 22, and 25?" it was admitted by Mr. Botterill. who appeared for the "R. W. Boyd," that his ship, whether we regard her in the character of a steamer or of an overtaking vessel, was bound to keep out of the way of the "Buckland," which was a sailing and an overtaken vessel, and that consequently it was the duty of the "R. W. Boyd" to comply with articles 16 and 21, and to avoid the "Buckland," if she could have done so, and that she would have avoided her had it not been for the improper manœuvres of the unknown steamer. He also stated that on hearing two short blasts from the other steamer, which he understood to be the indication that she was directing her course to port, and intended to pass starboard side to starboard side, the "R. W. Boyd" was justified in replying with two blasts, and that thenceforth she was bound under article 17 to keep her helm to starboard, which she did until the red light of the other steamer suddenly appeared, when she at once stopped and reversed full speed, as directed by article 14. This is the case set up by the "R. W. Boyd."

Now, however improper it may have been for the "R. W. Boyd," in the first instance, on seeing the lights of the other steamer, to starboard her helm, and thus pass from the south towards the north side of midchannel, yet when she heard two short blasts of the steam whistle from the other vessel, she might fairly assume that that vessel had accepted the position, and intended to pass starboard side to starboard side, and having answered with two short blasts from her steam whistle, she was then bound under the 17 article of the Regulations to continue under a starboard helm. But was she justified, as soon as the red light of the other steamer appeared, in stopping and reversing full speed, and in putting her helm hard a-port, the effect of which would, it is admitted, be to cant the steamer's head to starboard, and which brought her stem in contact with the port quarter of the "Buckland," that vessel being at the time upon her starboard bow? And does article 14, which says that a "steam vessel, when " approaching another vessel so as to involve risk of " collision, shall slacken her speed, and stop and reverse " if necessary," apply to this case? We were told by the master that, when he first saw the approaching vessel's green light, it was about 2 points on his starboard bow, and he stated that the subsequent starboarding of the "R. W. Boyd's" helm brought it to about 6 points on the starboard bow. Anderson, the waterman, says that it was not so much. But admitting that the approaching vessel's lights were less than 6 points on the starboard bow, and that they were bearing directly down upon them, heading, as the witnesses have said, for the fore part of the bridge, was it under the circumstances a proper manœuvre to stop and reverse full speed, and was it obligatory upon her under the 14th article of the Regulations to do so? Now, article 1 tells us that in obeying and construing these Rules, due regard must be had "to any special circumstances which " may render a departure from the Rules necessary, in " order to avoid immediate danger;" and article 2 says that the Rules shall not exonerate the master or crew "from the consequence of the neglect of any pre- " caution which may be required by the ordinary prac- " tice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of " the case." it must be observed that the fact that the approaching vessel had brought her red light to bear upon them does not in our opinion shew that she had unduly or improperly ported her helm, for the collision occurred off Gallion's Point, and we know that, after coming up Gallion's Reach, she would have to port her helm to straighten up Woolwich Reach; and it is quite conceivable that she may have ported her helm in full expectation that the "R. W. Boyd" would continue her course under a starboard helm, and would draw out of the way before the other vessel reached her. But assuming that she had ported her helm to straighten up Woolwich Reach somewhat sooner than she should have done, was it the proper course, under these circumstances, to stop the way of the "R. W. Boyd" right across the track of the approaching steamer—Was this in accordance with the ordinary practice of seamen? The assessors inform me that it was not, but that the proper course for the "R. W. Boyd" was to have continued her course, and if possible to have increased her speed so as to have got out of the way as soon as possible.

And now what are the reasons which are given us for stopping and reversing as she did as soon as the red light of the approaching steamer appeared? According to the master, the object in stopping and reversing full speed, and in putting the helm hard a-port when the red light appeared, was to cant the steamer's head to starboard and her stern to port, and thus give room to the approaching steamer to pass astern of her; but afterwards he stated that the object was to allow the other vessel to pass ahead of him, and between him and the barge. Anderson, who was the last witness examined, and was in Court, and had heard the evidence of all the other witnesses, seeing the inconsistency of the master's answers, and, I may add, their apparent absurdity, when he came to be examined, started another theory. In the first place he denied all recollection of having given the order to hard a-port the helm, which it is clear could only have had the effect of bringing the steamer's bows into the barge's port quarter, and he admitted the impossibility of the other steamer passing between them and the barge; he then however went on to say that his idea in starboarding was to clear the barge and the other steamer, and that his object in stopping and reversing full speed was to prevent his vessel from going ashore, there not being room, he said, to pass to the north of the barge without going aground, the "R. W. Boyd" drawing 17 feet of water. Anderson's explanation, however, when we came to examine it, appears to us to be as unsatisfactory as that of the master. The "Buckland," it should be observed, was drifting down with the tide, and would therefore keep as much as possible in the full stream, which she would have no difficulty in doing, seeing that what wind there was was from the N.W. It was full moon on the 5th of March, so that on the morning of the 4th the tides would be nearly at their highest, and we are told that at spring tides the rise of tide at that spot is from 18 to 20 feet. To say then that there would not be room off Gallion's Point within an hour after high water, and when the tides were nearly at their highest, for a steamer drawing only 17 feet of water to pass to the northward of a barge, which was going down in the strength of the tide, is what the assessors are unable to admit.

It appears to us therefore that article 14 of the Regulations is not applicable to the circumstances of the present case; and that the "R. W. Boyd" has violated the provisions of articles 16 and 21, she being a steamer and the overtaking vessel, in not getting out of the way of the "Buckland," which was a sailing and the overtaken vessel, when she might easily have done so by keeping on her course, and passing down the port side of the "Buckland," after which she might have ported her helm and brought herself again into mid stream. As regards article 22, we have already stated that the "R. W. Boyd" violated it in starboarding her helm when she first saw the lights of the approaching steamer. Mr. Botterill has, however, contended that she did comply with it when she hard a-ported her helm on seeing the red light; but then according to the master, the other vessel was 6 points on her starboard bow, or nearly abeam of her, and to port under those circumstances, with a view of passing port side to port side, would be the height of insanity. Lastly, we are asked by the Board of Trade to say whether the "R. W. Boyd" complied with article 25, which says that "where one of two vessels is to keep out of the " way, the other shall keep her course." Mr. Botterill stated that he could not see that this article had any reference to the case of the "R. W. Royd," and in that opinion we are disposed to concur.

The fourth question upon which our opinion is asked is, "Whether every possible effort was made to save life?" In our opinion no blame attaches to the "R. W. Boyd" on this account. The fact that the only person that was saved was picked up by a boat from the barge "Susan" is no proof that there was any want of due diligence on the part of those on board the "R. W. Boyd;" for the crew of the "Susan" would take but a very little time to jump into their boat, which was no doubt alongside, and pull down with the tide to the spot where the "Buckland" had sunk; whereas the "R. W. Boyd" would have to lower his boat into the water, and man it, and there is evidence that that boat did come up very soon after the master of the "Buckland" had been taken out of the water, and did take him on board the "R. W. Boyd."

The fifth question upon which our opinion is asked is, "Whether the master of the 'R. W. Boyd' was justified in taking on board G. J. Anderson, a waterman, instead of a properly qualified pilot?" It seems that the master had engaged a person named Henry Parkinson, who we are told is a waterman entitled to pilot vessels that are exempt from compulsory pilotage. On leaving Millwall Dock, however, Parkinson was not there, and accordingly the master engaged George James Anderson, a waterman, who he knew had no license to pilot vessels, on Anderson's assurance that he was quite competent to navigate her down the river; the master also it seems having already had some experience of Anderson's qualifications, from having employed him to pilot her from Millwall Dock to Turner's Dock and back again. He also stated that Parkinson, not being there, he had no option, but either to take Anderson, or to remain in Millwall Dock for another tide; and that as he had lost a good deal of time by the accident off Dover, he was anxious to get to his destination as soon as possible. No doubt these considerations are deserving of weight; at the same time, seeing that the master, as well as his officers, appear to have been totally ignorant of the navigation of the Thames, it may be doubted whether it would not have been better to have lost another tide rather than trust his vessel to a man who had no license, and who it now appears had never before piloted a steamer down to Gravesend. We are also quite sure of this. that, having elected to take an unqualified man, the master had no right whatever to entrust the charge of the vessel to him so entirely as he admits he did.

The sixth question upon which our opinion is asked is, "Whether the master and officers of the 'R. W. Boyd,' or the master of the 'Buckland,' or any of them, or any other person, and if so, who, are or is in default or to blame for the collision?" It is admitted that the master of the "Buckland" is not in any way to blame for the casualty; he was drifting down with the stream, and there was nothing for him to do which he omitted to do; nor do the officers of the "R. W. Boyd" appear to us to be in any way in fault; the whole blame for casualty rests with the master and Anderson the waterman. With the master, for having entrusted the entire charge of his vessel to a man whom he knew not to be qualified; and with Anderson, for having, when he first saw the lights of the approaching steamer, starboarded his helm, so as to pass her starboard side to starboard side, and for having afterwards, when the red light appeared, stopped and reversed full speed, thus stopping the vessel directly in the track of the approaching steamer, and at the same time canting the head of the steamer to starboard and into the port quarter of the "Buckland," and thus bringing about the collision.

The Board of Trade have not asked that the master's certificate should be dealt with, and we shall therefore not express any opinion whether we should or should not have dealt with it, had we been asked to do so.

Nor was it asked to make any order as to costs.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

R. ASHMORE POWELL,

 

 

 

ABSM. ANDERSON,

Assessors.

 

 

GEORGE HYDE,

 

L 367. 1102. 150.—4/82. Wt. 171. E. & S.