Wreck Report for 'British Commerce' and 'County of Aberdeen', 1883

(No. 1806.)

"BRITISH COMMERCE" AND "COUNTY OF ABERDEEN."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Westminster, on the 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th days of May 1883, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain HIGHT, Captain KNOX, R.N., and Captain CURLING, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the loss of the sailing ship "BRITISH COMMERCE," of Liverpool, and the loss of the lives of 24 of the persons on board her, through collision with the sailing ship "COUNTY OF ABERDEEN" in the English Channel, on the 24th of April 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 in question was due to Richard Bryers, the second officer of the "County of Aberdeen," for not having kept out of the way of the "British Commerce" as it was his duty to do, he being on the port tack, whilst the "British Commerce" was close hauled on the starboard tack, and that no blame attaches to the master or to any of the officers of the "British Commerce."

Under the circumstances, however, the Court will not deal with the certificate of the said Richard Bryers.

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

Dated this 11th day of May 1883.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

EDWARD HIGHT,

 

 

 

HENRY KNOX,

Captain, R.N.,

Assessors.

 

 

WILLM. CURLING, R.N.R.,

 

Annex to the Report.

The case of the "British Commerce" is as follows:—She was a three-masted iron sailing ship, belonging to to the Port of Liverpool, of 1,462 tons gross, and 1,417 nett register. She was built at Glasgow in the year 1874, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. William Thomas, of No. 30, Brunswick Street, Liverpool, who was likewise the managing owner. She left London on the 23rd of April last, with a crew of 25 hands, 2 stowaways, and a general cargo, bound to Melbourne. After passing Beachy Head she had to keep away to avoid a fleet of Brighton and Newhaven fishing boats, which put her some 5 or 6 miles to the south of her proper course, and she was then kept close hauled on the starboard tack, the wind being from North to N.N.W., trying to make a W. by N. or W.N.W. course, it being the master's intention to make St. Catherine's Point, so as to communicate with the owner from the signalling station at that point. At a little after midnight of the 24th she was about 15 or 16 miles to the south of the Owers Lightship, and was still close hauled to the wind on the starboard tack, the wind being still from North to N.N.W., when a vessel, which afterwards proved to be the "County of Aberdeen," was observed approaching her from ahead. Unfortunately, owing to the loss of almost the whole of the crew of the "British Commerce," the evidence from that vessel is extremely meagre, so that we do not know whether the "County of Aberdeen," when first seen, was ahead, or whether she was on either bow. All that we are told is that an order was given to port the helm, and that the "British Commerce" was luffed up close to the wind with her sails shaking. It seems that the watch had only just been changed, an d that both the first and second officers were still on deck, but that the master had shortly before gone down to his cabin to mark off the vessel's position on his chart. On hearing, however, the order to port, the captain immediately came on deck, when he observed the "County of Aberdeen" about three points upon his starboard bow, and about three ship's lengths off, bearing down upon him under a port helm. At this time he says that the sails of his own vessel were just lifting, shewing that she was as close to the wind as she could go; and that when the "County of Aberdeen" had got to within a ship's length of them, seeing that a collision was inevitable, he ordered the helm to be put hard-a-starboard, so as to bring the vessels, if possible, in a line; but that it was too late, for almost immediately afterwards the "County of Aberdeen" ran into them striking them with her stem and starboard bow at the break of the forecastle just forward of the fore rigging on the starboard side, and cutting some 12 to 18 feet through the deck into the fore hatch. The blow having been given about 8 or 9 feet abaft the collision bulkhead, the "British Commerce" began to fill immediately, and in three minutes from the time of the collision she foundered, but before she did so the boatswain of- the "British Commerce" managed to get on board the "County of Aberdeen" by clambering up over her bows. Two boats were at once lowered from the "County of Aberdeen," but they succeeded in picking up the captain only; the cries, however, of others of the crew could be heard, but owing to the quantity of wreckage which was floating about they were not able to get to them. One other of the crew, a man named Stanley, was, however, found at about 2 p.m. the same day, clinging to a piece of floating wreck, by a vessel called the "Fergus," and was taken on board, but all the rest of the hands, 24 in number, no doubt perished.

The story told by the "County of Aberdeen" is as follows:—She is a four-masted iron sailing ship, belonging to the port of Glasgow, of 1,943 tons gross and 1,865 tons nett register. She was built at Whiteinch near Glasgow in the year 1879, and at the time of the casualty, which forms the subject of the present inquiry, was the property of Mr. Robert Craig, of No. 175, St. Vincent Street, Glasgow, and others; Mr. Robert Craig being the managing owner. She left Calcutta on the 13th of January last with a crew of 29 hands, and a general cargo of 2,700 tons, bound to London; and on the 22nd of April following arrived off the Scilly Islands. On the 23rd she made the Lizard, when the wind having got more to the eastward they were not able to steer a course straight up the Channel, but had to keep a little to the southward, and at 4 p.m. of the 24th were in sight of Cape La Hague on the French coast, when the wind having got again to the northward she was put upon an E. by N. or E. by N. 1/2 N. course to make Beachy Head. A little before midnight she was still close hauled on the port tack, the wind being from North to N.N.E., when the "British Commerce" was observed about a point on the starboard bow and distant about a mile. It seems that it was the second officer's watch and that the master had shortly before gone below to mark off the position of the vessel on his chart. Not seeing any lights the second officer thought that it was a vessel going the same way as themselves, and he accordingly kept his course without giving any order; but when they had got within about 1/2 a mile of one another the red light of the "British Commerce" suddenly appeared, upon which he ordered the helm to be ported, and had brought the light about 2 points on his port bow when the red light disappeared and the green light appeared, shewing, as he says, that she had starboarded her helm. Upon this he ordered the helm to be put hard-a-port, but it was of no avail, for the two vessels shortly afterwards came together, the stem and starboard bow of the "British Commerce" striking the "County of Aberdeen" on the port bow, and staving it in. After the collision it was found that the fore compartment of the "County of Aberdeen" was full of water, and that she would not steer, and she accordingly remained on the same spot until between 8 and 9 a.m., when a steam vessel called the "Paris" came up, and having taken hold of her towed her to Spithead; whence she was subsequently taken round to London, and there put into dock for repairs.

These being the facts of the case, the Board of Trade have put to us a number of questions, the first seven of which may be more conveniently taken together; they are as follow:—

" 1. Which ship under articles 14 and 22 of the " sailing rules ought to have kept out of the way of the " other?

" 2. Did such ship take proper measures to keep out " of the way of the. other?

" 3. If not, was, she misled by a deviation from the " sailing rules of the other ship?

" 4. Was the collision attributable to an insufficient " look-out on board either ship, and which?

" 5. Was the collision attributable to the want of " proper lights on board either ship?

" 6. Was the collision attributable to the 'British " Commerce' starboarding her helm?

" 7. Whether both vessels were navigated with proper " and seamanlike care?"

And first it may be well to dispose of a preliminary point, which has given rise to some discussion in this case, namely, as to the time when the collision occurred. According to the "British Commerce" it was shortly after midnight of the 24th, the watch having been already mustered; but, according to the "County of Aberdeen," it was shortly before midnight, the watch on board that vessel not having yet been changed. It appears to us, however, that this apparent contradiction between the two parties can be readily explained. The two vessels were nearing the place of collision from opposite directions, the "British Commerce" coming from the east making from 4 to 5 knots, the" County of Aberdeen" coming from the west and making from 5 to 6 knots; the relative speed, therefore, at which they would be approaching one another would be about 10 knots an hour; so that at noon of that day they would have been some 120 miles apart. Now I am told by the assessors that on board merchant vessels the clocks are always set at noon on each day; so that at midnight the time on board a vessel coming from the eastward would always be in advance of, whilst that on board a vessel coming from the westward would be always behind the true time; which will easily account for the apparent difference in time on board the two vessels.

And now let us see, with which vessel the obligation to keep out of the way rested. According to the "British Commerce" the wind was from North to N.N.W., but according to the "County of Aberdeen" it was from North to N.N.E., each however claims to have been close hauled at the time. It appears to us, however, seeing that they had both got somewhat to the southward of their proper positions, the "British Commerce" in attempting to avoid the fleet of Brighton and Newhaven fishing boats, and the "County of Aberdeen" by the wind heading her, that this may very well have been so, and that each may have been making a weatherly course, trying to get to windward. Moreover it is well known that vessels, by their motion through the. air, draw the wind a little ahead, so that we may fairly assume the wind to have been about North, and if each was close hauled and sailing within about 7 points of the wind, the course of the "British Commerce" would have been about W. by N., that of the "County of Aberdeen" about E. by N. Both vessels then being close hauled, it would be the duty of the "County, of Aberdeen," which was on the port tack, under article 14 (b) of the sailing regulations, to keep out of the way of the "British Commerce," which was on the starboard tack; and it would be the duty of the "British Commerce," under Article 22, to keep her course. As a fact, however, neither complied with the regulations, the "County of Aberdeen" not having kept clear of the "British Commerce," and the "British Commerce" not having kept her course; and the question, which we have to consider, is whether they were justified under the circumstances in thus departing from the regulations.

If the "County of Aberdeen" did port her helm in time, so as to bring the red light of the "British Commerce" two points on her port bow, and that it was the starboarding of the "British Commerce's" helm which brought about the collision, the whole blame thereof would of course rest with the latter vessel. On the other hand, if the "County of Aberdeen" delayed too long to port her helm, and by porting at last thus brought about a collision, and that the starboarding of the "British Commerce's" helm was done only at the last moment, and with a view, if possible, of diminishing the effects of the blow, the blame for the collision would rest with the "County of Aberdeen." Accordingly a good deal of discussion took place as to how the two vessels had come together, whether, in the way stated by the witnesses from the "British Commerce," by the stem and starboard bow of the "County of Aberdeen" cutting into the "British Commerce's" starboard bow, or in the way stated by the "County of Aberdeen's" witnesses, by the stem and starboard bow of the "British Commerce" coming into collision with the "County of Aberdeen's" port bow. The point, as will presently be seen, is one of very considerable importance; but it appears to us that the balance of the evidence is decidedly in favour of its having taken place in the way stated by the "British Commerce." Two of the witnesses from that vessel, the boatswain, and Stanley, the donkeyman, who were both forward at the time, swore positively that the blow was a stem-on blow, leading aft; that it was given at the break of the forecastle, just forward of the fore rigging, and about 8 or 9 feet abaft the collision bulkhead; and that the "County of Aberdeen" cut some 12 to 18 feet through the deck into the "British Commerce's" fore hatch. Nothing could be more precise than their evidence on the point. On the other hand the witnesses from the "County of Aberdeen," when pressed on the point, were not prepared to swear that the blow had been given in the way stated by them, or that the starboard bow of the "British Commerce" had come in contact with the port bow of the "County of Aberdeen." A number of photographs were however brought in, which, it is said, shewed that there had been no damage done to the starboard bow of the "County of Aberdeen," and that the whole of the damage was on the port bow. On examining, however, these photographs with attention it appeared to us that the starboard bow was not uninjured, for that all the projecting bolts and eyes on the star board bow had been clean cut off, as one might expect if she had penetrated the "British Commerce," as she is said to have done. Moreover we have had the evidence of Mr. McGowan, the shipwright surveyor to the Board of Trade, who surveyed the "County of Aberdeen" upon her arrival at Spithead, and who told us that the appearances on the "County of Aberdeen's" bows shewed conclusively, in his opinion, that she had cut some 12 or 18 feet into the other vessel in the way described by the witnesses from the "British Commerce," there being scratches on the starboard bow for a distance of about 18 feet, and on the port bow for about 12 feet from the stem. The owners of the "County of Aberdeen" might, if they had thought fit, have produced the evidence of the surveyors who examined the vessel with a view to her being repaired, which would have set this point at rest, but they have not done so, and we must therefore take it that they are not prepared to contradict Mr. McGowan's evidence. I may add that the fact that the vessel sank within 3 minutes after the collision is, in our opinion, a strong proof that the blow must have been given abaft the collision bulkhead, as described by the witnesses from the "British Commerce;" had it been given with the stem and starboard bow of the "British Commerce" against the port bow of the "County of Aberdeen" the damage to the former vessel would have been forward of the collision bulkhead, and in that case the vessel would have continued to float with her fore compartment full, as the "County of Aberdeen" did, or at all events she would not have gone down as she did in three minutes after the collision.

But if the collision occurred in the way stated by the "British Commerce," namely, by the stem and starboard bow of the "County of Aberdeen" striking the starboard bow of the "British Commerce," it seems to us to prove two things. First, that the "County of Aberdeen" could never have brought the red light of the "British Commerce" on to her port bow, as the second officer said she did; for, if so, no amount of starboarding on the part of the "British Commerce" could then have brought her starboard bow in contact with the "County of Aberdeen's" starboard bow; so that the "County of Aberdeen" must always have had the "British Commerce" on her starboard side, and in that case she had no right to port at all, but should have kept her course and gone to windward. Secondly, it proves that a shorter time must have elapsed between her first seeing the "British Commerce" and the collision than the second officer of the "County of Aberdeen" would wish us to believe. It is well known that very little reliance can be placed on a sailor's estimate of time or distance in cases of this kind, everybody being in a state of excitement and alarm, and that the best way of estimating the time that may have elapsed, or the distance at which an object may have been seen, is by ascertaining what has been done in the interval, and this I think that we are able to do in this case from the evidence of Holland, the man at the wheel, who told us that the first intimation that he had of the approach of the "British Commerce" was when he got the order to port, and that he had not had time to get the wheel once round before he heard the look-out man sing out, "I see a green light," and that thereupon the order was given to "hard up;" and it is admitted by all the witnesses that the collision took place almost immediately afterwards.

The way, then, in which the collision would seem to have occurred is this: The two vessels, as I have already stated, were approaching one another, each close hauled to the wind, the "British Commerce" on the starboard tack heading about W. by N., and the "County of Aberdeen" on the port tack heading about E. by N., so that their courses would intersect at an angle of about two points. Until then the "County of Aberdeen" had crossed the point of intersection of their courses she would see the red light of the "British Commerce" about a point on her starboard bow; but as soon as she had passed that point, the green light would appear, still however on the starboard bow. What happened then was probably this; the second mate of the "County of Aberdeen," either from not keeping a good look-out, or from some other cause, did not see the light of the "British Commerce" until he was near the point of intersection of the courses of the two vessels, when her red light came in view upon his starboard bow, upon which the order to port was given; but before that order had been fully carried out, and the vessel had come round under her port helm, she had crossed the point of intersection of the courses, when the green light of the "British Commerce" would at once come into view, upon which the order to hard a-port was given; but the vessels were then too close to one another to avoid a collision. It appears to us that the collision was due either to the "County of Aberdeen" not having kept her course when she had the "British Commerce" on her starboard bow, or to her not having ported her helm in sufficient time.

And now let us see whether the "British Commerce" by what she did contributed in any way to the collision. There seems to be no doubt that when she first saw the "County of Aberdeen" an order was given to port the helm, and that she was brought so close to the wind that her sails began to shake, not so much however as to lose command of the vessel, and that she was in this condition when the master came on deck. For this I think that there can be no doubt that she was not to blame, the case of the "Marmion" being in our opinion conclusive on the point. There the Court held that a close-hauled vessel is justified, after she has sighted another vessel, in luffing so as to bring herself as close to the wind as she can get, keeping herself at the same time under command; and that such luffing up is not a deviation from her course that will relieve the other vessel, having the wind free, from the duty of getting out of her way. Upon the authority of that case, supported as it has been by a series of other cases, the "British Commerce" was not in our opinion to blame for luffing up close to the wind, provided that she kept herself properly under command, and that she did so is in our opinion proved by the fact that when the master ordered the helm to be starboarded she at once began to pay off. But, secondly, was the master of the "British Commerce" to blame for starboarding, as he did, when he saw the "County of Aberdeen" upon his starboard bow bearing down upon him? There have been many decisions upon this point, but I think the case of Smitherman v. the South Eastern Railway Company is conclusive on the point. There the Court held that if a man is suddenly put, by the wrongful act of another, in a position of difficulty and danger, he is not to be deemed guilty of negligence if he does that which in the result seems to be wrong. In that case the wrongful act done was the sudden coming of an engine to a spot where it was the ordinary practice of the company to allow passengers to cross, and although Smitherman did a wrong act when he found the engine coming down upon him, and did that which probably conduced to the accident, it was held by the Court that the Company, and not Smitherman, was responsible for the consequences. The wrongful act in this case was done by the "County of Aberdeen" in bringing herself on to the" British Commerce's" starboard bow and then suddenly porting her helm, instead of keeping out of her way, either by continuing her course and passing to windward, or by porting her helm in sufficient time to go clear of her. It appears to us therefore that the deviation from the sailing regulations on the part of the "British Commerce" in starboarding her helm at the last moment, and when a collision had become inevitable, was not such a deviation as the master of the "British Commerce," who gave the order, could be held responsible for, and that the whole blame for the collision rests with the "County of Aberdeen."

In answer then to the questions that have been put to us, it appears to us that it was the duty of the "County of Aberdeen" to keep but of the way of the "British Commerce," that she did not do so, and that she was not misled by any deviation from the rules on the part of the "British Commerce." That the "British Commerce" had her lights burning is clear, for it is admitted that they were both seen from the "County of Aberdeen" before the collision, and the evidence is that they were very good lights and were burning brightly; and the reason why they were not seen sooner was probably due to their not having had a good and sufficient look out on board the "County of Aberdeen." Whether there was a good look out on board the "British Commerce" it is difficult to say, all those who could have given us the information having perished; all that she had to do was, keep her course, luffed up as close as possible to the wind, and that she seems to have done until just before the collision, when she starboarded her helm, but the collision was then inevitable, and the starboarding of the helm does not appear to have contributed thereto. It appears to us therefore that the "British Commerce" was navigated with proper and seamanlike care, but that the "County of Aberdeen" was not.

I will now take the 8th and 9th questions together; they are, "Whether both vessels carried their boats, or " some of them, in such a manner as to be readily " available for lowering in case of emergency?" and " Whether every possible effort was made to save " life?" There seems to be no reason to think that the boats on board both vessels were not being carried in such a position that they would be readily available in case of emergency, or that every possible effort was not made to save life. As regards the "British Commerce," sinking as she did within three minutes after the collision, it was quite impossible that they could have done anything towards lowering the boats or saving life; and as regards the "County of Aberdeen" we have it in evidence that two boats were lowered from her within a very short time after the collision, and that they succeeded in picking up the master, and although there were others of the crew whose voices they could hear, but whom we are told they were not able to reach owing to the quantity of wreckage which was floating about, and which threatened to stave in the boats, there is nothing to shew that the men did not act to the best of their ability. At the same time it is perhaps to be regretted that in such an emergency a superior officer was not sent in one of the boats, as he might from his experience have suggested some means by which assistance might have been afforded to the unfortunate men. No blame, however, attaches to the master or to any of the officers, who were not told until some time afterwards that there were any persons amongst the floating wreckage. The vessel, it seems, remained on the spot until between 9 and 10 in the morning, and during that time a vigilant look out appears to have been kept on board the ship to see if there were any persons floating about, and no charge is made either by the captain or the boatswain of the "British Commerce" that every effort was not made to save life.

The last question which we are asked is, "Whether " the master of the 'British Commerce' and the master " and officers of the 'County of Aberdeen' are, or any " of them is, in default? " And it is added that "the " Board of Trade are of opinion that the certificates " of the master of the 'British Commerce' and of the " master and second officer of the 'County of Aberdeen' " should be dealt with." As regards the master of the "British Commerce" he was in his cabin examining his chart when the "County of Aberdeen" was first reported; on hearing the report he at once came on deck, and seeing her upon his starboard bow bearing down upon him, and a collision inevitable, he ordered the helm to be starboarded, with a view of diminishing the force of the blow. In so doing we think that he was not to blame; but, even assuming that he was, it is not such a fault as would under the circumstances call for any censure from the Court. As regards the master of the "County of Aberdeen" he also was in his cabin consulting his chart, which he was quite right to do, as he was bound up Channel, and he had left the deck in charge of the second officer; no blame therefore attaches to him. Blame, however, does, in our opinion, attach to the second officer, to whom the collision is principally due; he ought, from the time when the "British Commerce" was first reported, to have kept a vigilant look-out upon her, and not to have at once jumped to the conclusion, from not seeing her lights, that she was going the same way as himself; had he done so he would no doubt have seen, as one of the hands forward did, that she was meeting him, and might then have taken steps in sufficient time to keep clear of her. Seeing, however, that the night was admittedly dark and hazy, and that he was called upon to act without much time for reflection, it appears to us that it is not a case in which we should be disposed to deal with his certificate.

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

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

EDWARD HIGHT,

 

 

 

HENRY KNOX,

Captain R.N.,

Assessors.

 

 

WILLM. CURLING, R.N.R.,

 

L 367. 1578. 150.—5/83. Wt. 73. E. & S.