Wreck Report for 'F. W. B.' and 'Gertrude', 1882

(No. 1331.)

"F.W.B." AND "GERTRUDE" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Westminster on the 17th of April 1882, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain CURLING and Captain HARLAND, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the loss of the sailing ship "F. W. B.," of Brixham, through collision with the steamship "GERTRUDE," of Dundee, off Southend, on the 24th of March 1882.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed, that the said collision was due to a sufficiently good look-out not having been kept on board the "Gertrude," having regard to the speed at which she was proceeding up the river, the state of the weather, and the condition of the tide; and that the blame thereof rests with Philip Newton, the master of the said vessel, who holds no certificate.

The Court made no order as to costs.

Dated this 17th day of April 1882.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

WILLM. CURLING, R.N.R.,

Assessors.

 

 

ROBERT HARLAND,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 17th of April instant, when Mr. Kenelm Digby appeared for the Board of Trade, and Mr. Williams for the owners and master of the "F. W. B.;" the master of the "Gertrude" was present, but was not represented by either counsel or solicitor. Eight witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Kenelm Digby handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Williams then addressed the Court on behalf of his parties, and Mr. Kenelm Digby having been heard in reply, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions on which its opinion had been asked. The circumstances of the case are as follow:—

The "F. W. B." was a brigantine, belonging to the Port of Brixham, of 200 tons gross and 192 tons net register. She was built at Alloa in the year 1880, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. Frederick William Baddeley, junior, of Brixham, shipowner, and others, Mr. Baddeley being the managing owner. She left Berbice on the 15th of February last for London, with a crew of 8 hands and a cargo of rum and sugar, and on the 22nd of March following had arrived off Dungeness, where a duly licensed Trinity House pilot, named Charles Pordige, came on board and took charge of her. She then continued her voyage, and at about midnight of the 23rd was off Southend, in the River Thames, when the pilot, seeing that the night was dark, and that there were several small vessels about, and understanding that it was the usual practice for the vessel to tow up from that point, determined to come to an anchor; accordingly, the port anchor and 35 fathoms of chain were let go, and she brought up with her head down the river, it being flood tide, the East River Middle Buoy bearing about N. by E., and about 4 cables off. As soon as the vessel was anchored the side lights were taken down, and a bright light was put up in the starboard forerigging, and the usual anchor watch having been set the pilot and the rest of the hands turned in. The night, we are told, was dark, with drizzling rain, but there was no fog, and lights could be readily seen, both from the shore and the ships about. From 2 to 3 a.m. a man named Edward Jonson was keeping the anchor watch, and at about 2.45, just as he was about to call the man who was to relieve him, he observed the green and masthead lights of a steamer, which afterwards proved to be the "Gertrude," about 2 points on his port bow, but he thought that she would pass ahead of him. At about 5 minutes to 3 Blake, the man who was to relieve him, came up, and at this time the steamer had got much nearer, still shewing only her green and masthead lights, and being still about two points on the port bow, and seeing that she was then bearing down upon them, both the men began to shout, and at the same time Blake ran to the forecastle to call the men, whilst Jonson went aft to call the master. They had, however, hardly done so, and the men had not yet had time to come on deck, when the steamer came into them, striking the "F. W. B." a little abaft the fore rigging, on the port side, and cutting her down to the water's edge. Seeing that she was sinking fast, the whole of the crew of the "F. W. B." got on board the "Gertrude," the master of that vessel keeping his engines going ahead to enable them to do so, and when all were on board he backed clear, and the "F.W.B." almost immediately afterwards foundered, happily, however, without any loss of life.

The story told by the "Gertrude" is as follows:—She was an iron screw steamship, belonging to the Port of Dundee, of 220 tons gross, and 137 tons net register, and was fitted with engines of 40 horse power. She was built at Stockton-on-Tees in the year 1873, and at the time of the casualty was the property of Mr. William Fleming Robertson of 31, Lombard Street, London, iron merchant, who was likewise the managing owner. She left Dieppe at about 12.15 p.m. of the 23rd of March last for London, in ballast, and with a crew of 10 hands all told; and between 2 and 3 o'clock a.m. of the 24th was abreast of the Nore Light, which she passed to the northward at a distance of from half to three quarters of a mile; and she was thereupon put on a N.W. by W. 3/4 W. course, keeping the Chapman Light about 3/4 of a point on the starboard bow, and that course was kept until the collision. At this time the master was keeping the watch, and was walking backwards and forwards on the fore part of the bridge close to the wheel, an able seaman named Daniel Sibourn was stationed on the look out forward, and another able seaman named Benjamin Juniper was at the helm. The night, as I have said, was dark, with drizzling rain, but the weather was sufficiently clear for lights to be seen, and the vessel was going at full speed and making from 7 to 7 1/2 knots an hour. Suddenly at about 3 a.m. the loom of a vessel, which proved to be the "F. W. B.," was observed by the master, right ahead, upon which he at once ordered the helm to be put hard-a-port, but the vessel was then so close that they had no time to clear her, and the "Gertrude" ran into her, sinking her as has been already stated.

Now these being the facts of the case, the first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Whether on the night of the 23rd of March last the 'F. W. B.' took up a safe and proper anchorage?" Pordige, the pilot, has told us that the vessel was anchored about four cables lengths S. by W. of the East River Middle Buoy, and consequently in mid stream; but it is not said that it was an improper place, and in the opinion of the assessors it was a safe and proper anchorage for her to take up.

The second question upon which our opinion is asked is, "Whether she exhibited a light in accordance with the requirements of article 7 of the rules and bye-laws for the navigation of the River Thames; and whether the said light was placed where it could be seen within the meaning of the said rule?" The 7th rule, to which reference is here made, is in these words: "A steam " vessel, a sailing vessel, or a barge, when at anchor in " the river, shall carry, where it can best be seen, at a " height not exceeding 20 feet above the hull, a white " light in a globular lantern of not less than eight " inches in diameter, and so constructed as to shew " a clear, uniform, and unbroken light, visible all " round the horizon, at a distance of at least one mile." Both the witnesses from the "F. W. B." as well as those from the "Gertrude" told us that the light was a very good one; and Pordige the pilot stated that he had carefully examined it both on that night and also on the night before, and that he observed that it was a particularly good light. It seems to have been trimmed with petroleum oil, and, judging from the lantern which has been got up from the wreck and exhibited in Court, we should be disposed to think that it was fully up to the requirements of rule 7. As to the height at which it was suspended, there seems to be some doubt. The rule states that it shall be carried "at a height not " exceeding 20 feet above the hull," but according to the master of the "F. W. B." it was from 23 to 27 feet above it, whilst the master of the "Gertrude" told us that it could not have been more than 12 feet above it. The pilot, however, told us that he took particular notice of the light, and that it was hung at a proper height above the dock, and that if it had not been, he should have taken upon himself to have lowered it, and as he has had an experience of 16 years as a pilot, and may therefore fairly be assumed to be well acquainted with the rules for the navigation of the Thames, we are disposed to place a good deal of reliance on his evidence. Lastly, was the light placed, where it could be best seen, within the meaning of the rule. It seems that it was attached by a lanyard to the fore swifter of the fore rigging on the starboard side, which the pilot tells us is the place where it is invariably exhibited, a statement which is fully confirmed by the assessors. It seems to us, therefore, that not only was the light a good one, but that it was exhibited in the proper place.

The third question upon which our opinion is asked is, "Whether a good and proper look-out was kept on board the 'Gertrude'?" The master told us that his attention was first called to the "F. W. B." by hearing the shouting, that she was then right ahead, and that he had only just time to order the helm to be put hard-a-port before they ran into her. Sibourn, however, the man who was stationed forward on the look-out, stated that he did not see her until they were close upon her, so close indeed that he had no time to report her. It is clear, therefore, that although the master may have seen her first, neither of them could have seen her until they were very close to her. They would seem then to be in this dilemma, either the night was so dark that they could not have seen her until they were very close to her, and in that case they ought not to have been going at full speed, or they were not keeping a good look-out. On the whole we are disposed to accept the latter alternative, and to think that they were not keeping such a look-out as, under the circumstances, they should have done. Perhaps the fact that there was a head wind with drizzling rain at the time, making it much more pleasant to be under the shelter of the bulwarks than looking out ahead, may account for the casualty, but it is no excuse for a good look-out not having been kept.

This brings us to the fourth question, which is, "Whether the 'Gertrude' was navigated with proper and seamanlike care?" The master of the "Gertrude" stated as an excuse for not seeing the light of the "F. W. B.," that she was at the time swung across the tide, it being the last quarter of the flood, but the master knew, or ought to have known, what time of tide it was, and that vessels would then be beginning to swing, and seeing, as he admitted he did, that there were a number of vessels about, it was his duty, the night being dark with drizzling rain, to have exercised greater care and caution in going up the river instead of which he was going at full speed, and making 7 to 7 1/2 knots. If he chose to go up at this speed he ought to have kept a better look out. In our opinion the "Gertrude" was not being navigated with proper and seamanlike care.

The fifth question upon which our opinion is asked is, "What was the cause of the casualty?" The cause of the casualty no doubt was that the "F. W. B." was not discovered in sufficient time, and that when seen, it was not possible to avoid running into her.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "Whether the master of the 'Gertrude' and the master of the 'F.W. B.' are, or either of them is, in default, and whether blame attaches to the pilot of the 'F.W.B.' No blame, in our opinion, attaches either to the master or to the pilot of the "F. W. B.;" both were below at the time of the collision, but before going below they had seen that the vessel was anchored in a proper position, and that a proper anchor light and anchor watch were set. The whole blame for the collision rests with the master of the "Gertrude" for not keeping a sufficiently good look-out, having regard to the speed at which the vessel was going, the state of the weather, and the condition of the tide at the time. The result has been the loss of a valuable vessel worth with her cargo about 13,000l. We are told the master holds no certificate.

At the conclusion of the Inquiry Mr. Williams asked for costs, not against the "Gertrude," but against the Board of Trade, but it appears to us that the case was a very proper one for an inquiry, and that there is consequently no ground for condemning the Board of Trade in the costs.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

WILLM. CURLING, R.N.R,

Assessors.

 

 

ROBERT HARLAND,

 

L 367. 1101. 150.—4/82. Wt. 171. E. & S.