Wreck Report for 'Fulmar', 1883

(No. 2023.)

"FULMAR" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at the Sessions House, Westminster, on the 15th day of December 1883, before H. C. ROTERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captains FORSTER and RONALDSON, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the stranding of the steamship "FULMAR," of London, near the entrance to Boulogne Harbour, whilst on a voyage from Middlesbrough to Boulogne.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed, that the stranding of the said vessel was due to John Dobbyn, the master, in having allowed the vessel to approach too near the harbour, and thus to get into the current, which was at the time setting across the entrance to the northward, instead of waiting sufficiently far out until he had obtained a pilot to take him in, he being ignorant of the navigation, and not having been into Boulogne before: but that there is no pretence for saying that either before or at the time of the stranding he was the worse for drink. Under the circumstances the Court will not deal with his certificate.

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

Dated the 15th day of December 1883.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

GEORGE H. FORSTER,

Assessors.

 

 

A. RONALDSON,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 15th day of December instant, when Mr. Israel Davis appeared for the Board of Trade, and Mr. Dickens for the master of the "Fulmar." Six witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Israel Davis handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Dickens then addressed the Court on behalf of the master, and Mr. Israel Davis having replied for the Board of Trade, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions upon which its opinion had been asked. The circumstances of the case are as follows:—

The "Fulmar" is an iron screw steam ship belonging to the port of London, of 652 tons gross, and 418 tons net register, and is fitted with engines of 90 horse power. She was built at Middlesbrough in the year 1868, and at the time of the casualty which forms the subject of the present inquiry, she was the property of Mr. James Dixon, of 81, Gracechurch-street, in the city of London, and others, Mr. James Dixon being the managing owner. She left Middlesbro' at about 6.30 a.m. of the 19th day of November last for Boulogne with a crew of 17 hands all told, and a cargo of 840 tons of pig iron, drawing 14 feet forward and 15 feet 1 inch aft; and at 3 p.m. of the following day she was off the East Goodwin Light Vessel, bearing N.E. distant about 4 miles, the wind at the time being from about S.W. and blowing strong, when a piece of chain about 8 fathoms long was washed by the sea out of the starboard scupper, and in falling was caught by the propeller. Fearing lest the propeller should become disabled thereby, the master at once put back for the North Foreland, but finding, after working the engines ahead and astern for about three hours, that the chain, although still there, did not disable the propeller, he determined to continue his voyage to Boulogne, and at about 9 p.m. the same day Cape Grinez Light bore S.W. by S. distant about 15 miles. Knowing that he would not be able to get into Boulogne Harbour before high water, which on that day would not be before 4 a.m., he put the engines at "easy;" and at about 2.30 a.m. the lights at the ends of the piers of Boulogne Harbour were visible distant about 6 miles, upon which the vessel was kept under easy steam heading for the entrance, and flares up were burnt, and the steam whistle blown as a signal for a pilot. No pilot, however, coming off, the vessel, continued to approach the entrance to the harbour, the master, as he told us, being under the impression that he should not get one until he was close in, and when at the distance of about half a mile, according to the master, from the entrance, the vessel took a sudden sheer to port, and although the helm was at once put hard aport, before she could be brought round, the vessel struck aft, and grounded some distance to the northward of the pier. It was then about 3.30 a.m., and within about half an hour of high water, and the sea at once began to break over her fore and aft, rendering it difficult to stand on the deck; and the crew and the firemen becoming demoralized, a rush was made to get out the boats, and notwithstanding the efforts of the master and some of the officers it was found impossible to induce them to return to their duty. At about 4.30 a lifeboat from the shore came off to them, and all hands then left the vessel, except the master who refused to accompany them. Between 7 and 8 a.m. the tide had fallen sufficiently to permit the crew to return to the ship, when they found the master lying on the bridge insensible. The second mate and the chief engineer, who were the first to return on board, then carried him to his cabin, and having taken off his clothes, they rubbed his body all over with some spirits, which had been obtained from the chief engineer's cabin, and in that way animation was restored. While the master was still in bed, and in a semi-conscious state, the consul, or a gentleman from his office, came on board, and seeing the captain told him to come on shore with his papers. He was not able to go at once, but at about 10 or 11 o'clock he got up and went on shore. During the day anchors and chains were carried out to seaward to prevent the vessel driving further up the beach; and holes were cut in the sides to allow the water to run out of her. On the 21st the agent for the underwriters took possession, and the cargo having been taken out of her she was hauled off the beach, and taken first into Boulogne Harbour, whence she was afterwards towed to London, where we understand she now is.

These being the facts of the case, the Board of Trade have put a number of questions to us, the first eight of which I will take together. They are as follow:—

1. Whether, when the vessel arrived off Boulogne Harbour on the morning of the 21st November, proper measures were taken to obtain a pilot?

2. Was the master justified in attempting to enter the harbour without a pilot?

3. Whether a proper course was set and steered for the harbour, and whether proper allowance was made for tide and current?

4. Why did the vessel take a sheer, when approaching the entrance of the harbour?

5. Was the total neglect of the lead justifiable?

6. What was the cause of the casualty?

7. Was the vessel navigated with proper and seamanlike care and skill? and

8. Whether the master and officers are, or either of them is, in default?

It seems that the master had never before been into Boulogne Harbour, and he would therefore naturally be desirous of having a pilot to take him in; and there is no reason to think that he did not take all proper measures by burning flares up and by blowing his whistle to endeavour to obtain one. Knowing, however, as he has told us, from previous experience at Calais and other French ports, that the pilots will not go out to vessels at a distance, but frequently wait until they are close to the harbour before boarding them, the captain laid the vessel's head for the entrance, and approached it gradually under easy steam, occasionally stopping and blowing the whistle. It was said by the learned counsel for the Board of Trade that there was evidence to shew that the master was attempting to enter the harbour without a pilot, and that, being ignorant of the navigation, he had no right to do so. We are not, however, satisfied that he was attempting to enter the harbour, although if he had been we are far from saying that if a pilot had not come out to him he would not under the circumstances have been justified in making the attempt, or, as Mr. Israel Davis said, in chancing it. The master has told us that the weather was at the time very threatening, with the wind and sea from the S.W., and there was still this chain round his propeller, which might at any time have disabled the vessel and rendered her quite unmanageable. Be this, however, as it may, the master is approaching the harbour either with the intention of obtaining a pilot, or, if he did not obtain one, with the intention, let us say, of going in without one; he gets nearer to it, as he admits, than he thought he was, and is then caught in the current, which it is well known sets with the flood tide to the northward across the entrance, and before she could be brought back again to her course she touches the ground. This is, in our opinion, the cause of the casualty. It was not a case in which it was necessary to use the lead, for the weather was clear, and the lights at the entrance to the harbour were distinctly visible, and would be a much better guide to him for entering the harbour than the lead. No doubt, as Mr. Dickens has said, the master was somewhat to blame for allowing the vessel to get into this current, of the existence of which a more careful study of his sailing directions would probably have told him. But, on the whole, the master seems to have navigated his vessel with care and skill; he put back to the North Foreland when the chain got round his propeller, and finding, after trying the engines ahead and astern for three hours, that it did not impede the action of the propeller he continued his voyage to Boulogne, which the assessors think that he was justified in doing, instead of, as is suggested, putting into either Dover or Ramsgate; and then, when he gets off Boulogne, not getting a pilot, he was justified, the assessors think, in approaching the entrance,. and, if necessary, of attempting, under the circumstances, to go in without one.

The last question which we are asked is, "Whether at and previous to the casualty the master was under the influence of drink?" From the questions which were put to the witnesses in the course of their examination it would seem that some information must have come to the Board of Trade of a nature to lead them to think that the master had been the worse for drink at the time of or subsequent to the stranding, but the evidence on this point broke down so completely that the learned counsel struck this question out; at the request of Mr. Dickens however it was reinstated to enable the Court to express its opinion on the subject. How the charge originated the Court is not informed for all the witnesses from the ship have stated that there is no foundation whatever for the charge; and the only way in which the Court supposes that it may have originated is from the gentleman from the Consul's office who went on board the ship, and there saw the master in bed and in a semi-conscious state, and perceiving the smell of spirits, with which the poor man's body had been rubbed, and the remains of the spirits in the bottle on the table in the cabin, he perhaps not unnaturally supposed that he had been intoxicated; but' the Court is very glad to say that there is not the slightest foundation for the charge, and that he leaves the Court without a suspicion of having been the worse for drink either before the casualty had occurred or after it.

We are told that the master has been for 20 years at sea, during which time he was for 4 years in one ship and for 2 years in another as chief mate, and he has been for more than 2 years in command of the "Fulmar," and he has produced good testimonials from his employers. Under all these circumstances the Court will not deal with his certificate.

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

 

(Signed)

H. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

GEORGE H. FORSTER,

Assessors.

 

 

A. RONALDSON,

 

L 367. 1795. 150.—12/83. Wt. 73. E. & S.