Wreck Report for 'Frances', 1883

(No. 1718.)

"FRANCES."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at the Sessions House, Westminster, on the 12th of March 1883, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Rear Admiral PICKARD and Captain HYDE, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the foundering of the sailing barge, "FRANCES," of Faversham, whilst on a voyage from London to Dunkirk, on the 2nd of February 1883, when one life was lost.

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 was due to the sea breaking over her and filling her cabin, and that although she was well built and in good condition, she ought not, looking at her size and the amount of cargo which she had on board, to have been taken on such a voyage, more especially at that season of the year.

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

Dated this 12th day of March 1883.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

BENJN. S. PICKARD,

Assessors.

 

 

GEORGE HYDE,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at the Sessions House, Westminster, on the 12th of March 1883, when Mr. Muir Mackenzie appeared for the Board of Trade. The owner and master of the "Frances" were present, but were not represented by either counsel or solicitor. Five witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Muir Mackenzie handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. The owner and master having then stated that they did not wish to address the Court, and Mr. Muir Mackenzie having been heard for the Board of Trade, 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 "Francis," which was a sprit-sail barge belonging to the port of Faversham, of about 44 tons gross and register, was built at Sittingbourne, in the county of Kent, in the year 1877, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mrs. Elizabeth Bassett, the wife of Mr. Thomas Bassett, of Milton next Sittingbourne, in the county of Kent, Mrs. Bassett being the managing owner. The vessel left Hammersmith on the 23rd of January last for Dunkirk, with a crew of two hands all told, and about 85 tons of oil cake; and having on the 25th come to anchor in the East Swale or Faversham river, was there detained by strong winds until 10 a.m. of the 1st of February following, when she proceeded down the river with the ebb tide and a nice breeze from the west, and brought up with that tide in Herne Bay. There she remained until about 6 p.m. of the same day, when she again got under weigh, with the wind from S.W. At 9 p.m. she was off the North Foreland, and was then put upon a S.E. course for Dunkirk, the wind being still from the S.W. At 1 a.m. of the following day the wind began to freshen, so much so, that by 2 o'clock they had to lower the topsail. It continued to increase, and at about 3.30 to 4 a.m. they took in the jib and mizen, and at the same time, the wind getting round to the southward, it was found that she would not lie higher than about E.S.E. As she was shipping a good deal of water the master, at about 5 a.m., determined to lay to on the port tack, with her head about S.W. by W. On trying the pumps it was found that she was not making any water; but as the sea was breaking over her, nearly washing them out of her, the master put her again on the starboard tack to run for the land, and she was kept close hauled on that tack with her head about E.S.E. At about 6 a.m. they sighted a pilot boat, which on being signalled to for assistance bore down towards them. At about 8 or 8.30, however, a heavy sea struck the barge, and heeled her over to port; this was followed by another sea, which filled the main sail and threw her over on her beam ends, and the sea coming in over the port quarter washed the slide of the companion forward, leaving an opening, through which the water poured down into the cabin. In about 4 or 5 minutes the vessel foundered, taking them all down with her; the master, however, on coming to the surface, saw the boat floating bottom upwards, and swam towards, and got upon it, whence he was soon afterwards rescued by the pilot boat; but the mate was not able to reach it, and was drowned.

These being the facts of the case, the first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Having " regard to the size and construction of the 'Frances,' " was her owner justified in sending her on a voyage to " Dunkirk in the month of January?" As regards the barge herself she seems to have been a thoroughly good and substantial vessel, having been built originally of English oak and pitch pine, and maintained ever since in a good state of efficiency. But, although a first-class vessel of the kind, what we are asked is, whether she ought to have been sent on a voyage to Dunkirk in the month of January. It seems that she was built for a Mr. Randall, of Faversham, a large brick merchant, who employed her regularly, down to his death in July last, carrying bricks from Faversham to London. After Mr. Randall's death she passed into the possession of his sister, Mrs. Bassett, who left the management of the barge entirely to Captain Sellen, who had been her master ever since she was built. The employment of the vessel in the brick trade between Faversham and London having ceased with the death of Mr. Randall, Captain Sellen had to find freights for her in other directions. In October last he made two voyages in her to Dunkirk, with oil cake, and after that a third voyage, and it was on his fourth voyage to that place that she foundered. Now we were told that the voyage across the Channel from Margate to Dunkirk generally occupied only about 8 or 10 hours; no doubt that that might be so in fine settled weather, but in midwinter, with the chances of the wind heading her, and of a storm coming on suddenly, the assessors are of opinion it was not a proper voyage for such a vessel to undertake.

The second question that we are asked is, "Was the " vessel overladen, and had she sufficient freeboard?" On each of the three previous voyages to Dunkirk the vessel had carried only 80 tons of cake, whereas on the last occasion she had 85 tons on board, a large addition for so small a vessel. As she lay in the East Swale, just before her departure, she had a freeboard of 8 inches, sufficient no doubt for the trade in which she had used to be employed between Faversham and London, but quite insufficient for the voyage across the Channel to Dunkirk, more especially in midwinter. The assessors think therefore that the vessel was overladen, and that she had not sufficient freeboard for the voyage on which she was bound.

The third question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Were the vessel's hatches and deck openings " properly protected?" She had two hatchways, a main hatchway 18 feet by 8, and a fore hatchway 10 feet by 8. The hatches which covered the hatchways were 8 feet by 2, and rested with their ends upon a projecting ledge inside the coamings about 2 1/2 inches wide, but there was no fore and after running down the centre, which would have been better, and have afforded additional support to the hatches. The hatches, however, were very substantially constructed of 2 1/2 inch pitch pine, and were covered with tarpaulins, secured in the usual way with battens and wedges; and there is no evidence that either of the hatches gave way, or that any water got into the ship through the hatchways. There was, however, on the after deck, which was raised about a foot above the main deck, an opening leading down to the cabin. This opening was covered with a sliding hatch, which was made to shift aft when anybody wanted to go down into the cabin. Owing, however, to there being no check on the fore part, the hatch was capable of being shifted forward, and this is what would seem to have occurred when the vessel foundered; the sea breaking over the port quarter moved the hatch some 15 inches forward, leaving an opening, through which the water rushed down and filled the cabin. And it was no doubt a serious defect that there was not a check to prevent the hatch moving forward, which seems to have led to the loss of the vessel.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "Was she " undermanned?" It seems that on the three previous voyages to Dunkirk she had had three hands, but that on the fourth and last voyage the third hand was dispensed with, on the ground that the ship's earnings would not afford it. The earnings, we are told, were divided in this way: all the expenses were first paid out, and the balance was then divided into two equal parts, one of which went to the owner, the other to the captain and crew, so that the master had an obvious interest in dispensing with the services of a third hand. No man, however, has any right to take a vessel to sea with an insufficient number of hands, and thus risk not only his own life, but the lives of, those on board, merely because he wished to obtain a larger portion of the vessel's earnings, or because he thought that the freights would not pay the cost of a third hand. Whilst then the assessors are of opinion that two hands were quite sufficient to navigate her on the voyages on which she had formerly been employed between Faversham and London, they think that she ought not to have gone on the voyage to Dunkirk without the same number of hands as she had had on the three previous similar voyages. At the same time it is proper to observe that there is nothing to shew that a third hand would have saved her in this case.

The fifth question that we are asked is, "When the " wind increased on the morning of February 2nd, did " the master take proper steps to prevent the water " getting into the cabin?" It does not appear that the master took any special precautions to prevent the water getting into the cabin; all all events he did not take the precaution of putting a check at the fore end of the cabin opening, which would have effectually prevented the hatch from moving forward out of its place and admitting the water into the cabin.

The sixth question that we are asked is, "What was " the cause of the vessel foundering?" The cause of vessel foundering was the displacement of the slide over the companion, which allowed the water to pour down into the cabin and fill it.

The seventh and last question which we are asked is, "Doss any blame attach to the owner and to the " master, or to either, and which of them?" The vessel came into Mrs. Basset's possession as the administratrix of her late brother's property, and we are told that she purchased it from the estate for the sum of 960l. Being of course quite incapable of taking upon herself the active control of the vessel, she employed a Mr. Hyder, an insurance broker and commission agent, residing at Milton, to manage the accounts, and left it to the master, Captain Sellen, an old and trusted servant of her brother, and who had been in her since she was built, to make all the necessary arrangements for the voyages on which she was to be employed, and the amount of the freight to be paid. No blame, therefore, rests upon Mrs. Bassett, the owner, for the vessel having gone to Dunkirk, for she seems to have had nothing to do with her employment; the blame of having taken her on her last voyage with a larger cargo, and with one hand less than she had had on the three previous voyages, and in the depth of the winter, must rest with the master, who entered into the contract, and made all the arrangements for that voyage.

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

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

BENJN. S. PICKARD,

Assessors.

 

 

GEORGE HYDE,

 

L 367. 1490. 150.—3/83. Wt. 171. E. & S.