Wreck Report for 'Bezaleel', 1884

(No. 2085.)

"BEZALEEL."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN matter of the formal Investigation held at Westminster on the 19th day of February 1884, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captains FORSTER and ANDERSON, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the stranding and loss of the sailing ship "BEZALEEL," on the East Goodwin Sands, on the 30th ultimo, whilst on a voyage from Benin to Schiedam.

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 and loss of the said vessel was due to the wrongful act and default of William Francis Weymouth, the master, in having, when he say the south Sand Head Lightship on his port beam, distant about 3/4 of a mile, improperly mistaken it for the Varne Lightship; and although the weather was at the time very thick, and the master quite ignorant of his true position, thereupon put the vessel on a N.N.E. course, and without taking any steps to ascertain his true position, continued her on that course until she struck on the eastern edge of the Goodwins.

For these wrongful acts and defaults the Court suspends his certificate for six months, but recommends that during the period of such suspension he be allowed a first mate's certificate.

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

Dated this 19th day of February 1884.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

GEORGE H. FORSTER,

Assessors.

 

 

A. ANDERSON,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 19th day of February instant, when Mr. Ravenhill appeared for the Board of Trade, and Mr. Nelson for the master of the "Bezaleel." Seven witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade, and examined, Mr. Ravenhill handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Nelson then addressed the Court on behalf of the master, and Mr. Ravenhill 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 follow:—

The "Bezaleel," which was a small wooden schooner, belonging to the Port of Salcombe, of 200 tons gross, and 188 tons net register, was built at Salcombe in the year 1856, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. William Mackay, of No. 6, Palmerston Buildings, Greenock, who was likewise, we are told, the managing owner. She left Benin on the 23rd of September last, with a crew of eight hands, and a cargo of 186 tons of palm oil, bound to Falmouth for orders, and drawing at the time about 9 feet 4 forward and 11 feet 2 aft. On the 20th of January following she arrived at Falmouth, and having there received orders to proceed to Schiedam, she left again on the 28th; and at about 5 a.m. of the 30th arrived off Beachy Head when she was put upon an E. by S. 1/2 s. course, the weather at the time being thick, with a fresh breeze from the W.S.W., and the vessel under fore topsail and fore topmast staysail making about 5 knots an hour. At 7 a.m. they passed to the northward of the Royal Sovereign Lightship, distant about half a mile, upon which the course was altered to east. and that course was continued until 11 30 a.m., when the master, thinking that he had passed Dungeness, altered it to E.N.E. At about 1 p.m., wishing to get into the Downs, the master altered the course to N.E. by E., and a few minutes afterwards a lightship was observed on the port beam, bearing about W.N.W., and distant about three quarters of a mile. Thinking that it was the Varne Lightship. The master altered the course to N.N.E., and that course was continued until about 2. or a quarter after, when broken water was observed on the port beam, and a cast of the lead having been taken by the boatswain, which gave 3 fathoms, all hands were at once called up on deck to set the sails; and whilst they were in the act of setting the mainsail, the vessel struck. After striking three times she got gain into deep water, and shortly afterwards the master, finding that the rudder was jammed, and that the vessel was unmanageable. ordered both anchors to be dropped. and on the weater clearing up they found that the East Goodwin Lightship bore S.W.

There is some discrepancy between the witnesses as to whether, when the broken water was first seen, the helm was put up or down; some of the seamen said that it had been put down or to starboard, which would have had the effect of bringing the ship's head up to the wind, and therefore towards the broken water; but the master and chief officer said that the helm was put to port, and we are inclined to think that it must have been so, from the fact that after coming off she anchored to the northward of the East Goodwin Light Ship, whereas, if the helm had been starboarded, she would not have come off at all, but would have remained on the sand.

Finding that the water was coming in very fast, accorcording to one of the witnesses like a mill stream, the master order a boat to be got out, and having pulled to a German steamer called the "Augusta," which had come up, he requested her master to take them in tow; and on his refusing to do so, he pulled to another steamer, a Norwegian vessel called the "Franco," the captain of which agreed to remain by them during the night. The whole of the "Bezaleel's" crew then went on board the "Franco," but at about half-past 5 the mate and two of the hands returned to the "Bezaleel," when they found that the water was over the deck; the barrels of palm oil however prevented her from sinking; but at about 7 o'clock she fell over on her broadside, and they then returned to the "Franco." The "Franco" Remained at anchor there during the night, and at about 7 o'clock of the following morning steamed down to her, when they found her lying over on her broadside, and seeing that it was quite impossible to do anything with her, the crew were at about 8 o'clock put into a smack, and at about 10 o'clock the same morning were landed at Ramsgate. The master told us that he remained at Ramsgate for about 10 days, but that nothing more was seen or heard of the vessel; and there can now be no doubt that she has gone down.

These being the facts of the case, the Board of Trade have put to us the following questions:—

1. What was the cause of the stranding of the vessel?

2. Whether, as the patent log was lost off the coast of Africa, the master was justified in neglecting to procure a new one at Falmouth?

3. What were the lights seen by the master and mate, at 4 a.m. and 7 a.m. on the 30th January?

4. Whether proper measures were taken to ascertain and verify the position of the vessel off each or either of these lights, and whether the master was justified in neglecting to time the flashes?

5. Whether a proper course was set and steered after passing the light last seen, and whether due and proper allowance was made for tide, currents, and leeway, and whether proper measures were taken to ascertain the distance the vessel had run upon that course?

6. Whether the master, having no patent log, was justified in neglecting to use the ship's log?

7. Whether proper measures were taken to ascertain and verify the position of the vessel at 11 30 a.m.?

8. Whether the master was justified in assuming that the vessel was off Dungeness?

9. Whether a safe and proper alteration was then made in the course, and whether due and proper allowance was made for tide, currents, and leeway?

10. Whether the master was justified in assuming that the light or light vessel seen about 1 p.m. was the Varne?

11. Whether proper measures were then taken to ascertain and verify the position of the vessel, whether a safe and proper alteration was then made in the course, and whether due and proper allowance was made for tides, currents, and leeway?

12. Whether the neglect of the lead was justifiable, especially having regard to the thick state of the weather, and to the fact that the master made the light or light vessel, which he states was the Varne, 1 mile on the port beam, whereas it should have been on the starboard side according to the reckoning?

13. Whether the vessel was navigated with proper and seamanlike care?

14. Whether the master and chief officer are, or either of them is, in default?

And it is added that "that Board of Trade are of opinion that the certificate of William F. Weymouth, late master, ought to be dealt with."

I do not suppose that it is seriously intended that we should answer all these questions seriatim, but in the remarks which I am about to make I hope to deal with them all, so far at least as it is necessary for the purposes of this inquiry. And, first, I think that there can be no question that the light which was seen at 5 a.m. was that of Beachy Head, and that the light vessel, which was seen at 7 a.m. was the Royal Sovereign Lightship. It is also not now denied that the lightship which was seen soon after 1 p.m., and which the master mistook for the Varne, was in reality the South Sand Head Light, and that the sand on which the vessel struck was the eastern edge of the Goodwins. Now this being so, a glance at the chart will shew that, with the South Sand Head Lightship bearing W.N.W., distant 3/4 of a mile, a N.N.E. course would inevitably take the vessel ashore on the Goodwins; and there can be no doubt that that was the cause of the casualty.

Let us see, then, what justification there was for the master mistaking the South Sand Head Lightship for the Varne. The reason he gives for making the mistake is that he supposed his vessel was going about 5 knots, and as the distance from Beachy Head to the Varne is about 42 miles, he thought that in 8 hours which had elapsed since they had passed Beachy Head they would have run about that distance. Now it is to be observed that the speed at which the vessel was estimated to be going must have been a mere matter of guesswork, for it seems that the master had lost his patent log on the coast of Africa, and although they remained for 8 days at Falmouth, he never thought of obtaining a new one. He tells us also that, although they had the reel of an ordinary log on board, the line was worn out, and that he had not taken the trouble to obtain a new one at Falmouth. It was, therefore, mere guesswork. In estimating, too, the distance run, it will be observed that the master has made no allowance for the tide, although the Admiralty tide tables tell us that it was high water that morning between 12 and 1 o'clock, so that she must have had the flood tide with her for some hours before she made the lightship, which must have carried her far beyond the Varne Lightship. Indeed, it is clear that during those 8 hours between 5 a.m. and 1 p.m. she must have gone about 56 miles, that being the distance between Beachy Head and the South Sand Head Lightship, or at the rate of about 7 knots, and not 5 knots, an hour the whole way. If, then, the master had thought at all upon the subject, and had consulted his tide tables, he must have known that it could not have been the Varne Lightship, and that it could be none other than South Sand Head Lightship.

But taking the master's own assumption that it was the Varne, was he justified in putting the vessel on a. N.N.E. course? It will be seen on looking at a chart that, with the Varne Lightship bearing W.N.W., distant 3/4 of a mile, a N.N.E. course would take him over the Varne, and if the tide was setting the vessel to the eastward, it would probably take her over the shallowest parts of that sand; and the assessors think therefore that he was not justified in taking that course.

But apart from this, was the master justified in putting the vessel on a N.N.E. course, without first making any attempt to verify his position? In our opinion he was not. He told us that, when he saw the lightship on his port beam, he knew that he had got out of his reckoning, for he had expected to make it on his starboard side. It was therfore his duty to have taken steps at once to ascertain his true position, which he could have done by taking a cast of the lead; and, if he had been where he expected he was, with the Varne Lightship bearing W.N.W., distant 3/4 of a mile, he would have found himself in 11 fathoms water; whereas a cast of the lead with the South Sand Head Lightship in that position would have given him 15 fathoms at least.

If, too, he thought that it was the Varne, it was his duty, when he altered the course to N.N.E., to have kept the lead constantly going, knowing that that course would take him across the Varne, and that the soundings would have indicated to him his true position. In our opinion there was no justification whatever for not using the lead.

The master has told us that he had been several times up the Channel, but that he had never before been beyond Dungeness without a pilot; there was therefore, as Mr. Nelson has justly observed, the greater necessity for his exercising the greatest care and caution; and yet, in weather so thick that at the distance of only 3/4 of a mile the lightship could not be clearly made out, he continued his course, in ignorance of his true position, and without making any attempt to ascertain it. What, in the opinion of the assessors, he should have done was to have found his way by the help of the lead into the East Bay of Dungeness, where he would in all probability have found a pilot.

It appears to us that this is a very gross case of negligence and that we have therefore no option but to deal with this gentleman's certificate. Indeed, Mr. Nelson has not contended that we should not do so, but he has asked us to deal leniently with him, as a suspension of his certificate will deprive him of the means of earning his livelihood. This, however, is not quite the case; but the Court has to consider not merely the interests of the master, but the fact that he has imperilled the lives of the persons entrusted to his charge, and that he has by his misconduct caused the loss of this ship and cargo, for which he can make no compensation either to the owners or to the underwriters. And we think that we shall be dealing very leniently with him, if we suspend his certificate for only six months. Seeing, however, that we have no wish to deprive him altogether of the means of earning his livelihood, we shall recommend to the Board of Trade that, during the period of the suspension of his master's certificate, he be granted a first mate's.

We were told by the learned counsel for the Board of Trade that the value of the vessel was 700l., and of the cargo 6,500l., but for what amount she was insured the master could not tell us. It seems that the owner had notice of these proceedings, but he has not attended the inquiry, owing probably to the fact that he has become bankrupt, and that his affairs are now in the hands of trustees, who have not entered any appearance. We have therefore no means of knowing in what amount either the ship or the cargo were insured.

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

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

GEORGE H. FORSTER,

Assessors.

 

 

A. ANDERSON,

 

L 367. 1857. 150.—2/84. Wt. 73. E. & S.