Wreck Report for 'Blackwall', 1884

(No. 2371.)

"BLACKWALL."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at the Sessions House, Westminster, on the 18th of November 1884, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captains PARFITT and HARLAND, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the stranding of the sailing ship "BLACKWALL," in Morecambe Bay, on the 28th of October 1884.

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 ship was due to the neglect and default of George Begg Webster, the master, but, under the circumstances, the Court will not deal with his certificate.

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

Dated this 18th day of November 1884.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

WM. PARFITT,

ROBERT HARLAND,

Assessors.

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 18th of November 1884, when Mr. Kenelm Digby appeared for the Board of Trade, and Mr. Nelson for the master of the "Blackwall." The owner was present, but was not represented by either counsel or solicitor. Six 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. Nelson, having produced a witness, then addressed the Court on behalf of the master, 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 "Blackwall," which is a wooden barque, belonging to the Port of London, of 710 tons gross, and 673 tons net register, was built at Blackwall in the year 1850, and at the time of the casualty, which forms the subject of the present Inquiry, was the property of Mr. John Stewart, of No. 2, East India Avenue, London, and others, Mr. John Stewart being the managing owner. She left St. John's, New Brunswick, on the 3rd of October last, with a crew of 16 hands all told, and a cargo of deals and boards, bound to Fleetwood in Lancashire, and at 5.30 p.m. of the 28th of the same month passed the Morecambe Bay Lightship, bearing N.N.E., distant about four miles. At this time it was blowing a strong gale from the N.W., with a heavy sea, and the vessel was under her two lower topsails, foresail, jib, and reefed upper fore topsail, and was making about 5 knots. Not seeing any pilot boat, the master determined to run for the harbour, his chief officer having been for 9 years resident at Fleetwood, engaged in fishing, and therefore presumably well acquainted with the navigation. The vessel was accordingly put upon an E. 1/2 N. course, but in about half an hour they sighted the Lights of Blackpool, and the master, thinking that they had got too far to leeward, then altered the course to E.N.E., until they had brought the Morecambe Bay Lightship to bear W. by N., when an E. 1/2 N. course was resumed. A man was then put in the chains, and the first cast, we are told, gave them 10 fathoms, but after this they got 7 fathoms, and then 5 and 6 fathoms. At about 7 p.m. Walney Island Light was sighted, and cross bearings were then taken of it and the Morecambe Bay Light. At about 8 or half-past he Wyre Light, which is at the entrance to Fleetwood Harbour, came into view, and before, the Morecambe Bay Light had been quite lost sight of, the mate went up into the mizen rigging, and took the bearings, as well as he could, of the two Lights, and found the Morecambe Bay Light to bear about W. by N. and the Wyre Light about E. by S., the vessel being between he two. From this time. the vessel was kept heading now E. 1/2 N., now E.N.E., according as the water was found to be shoaling, the object of the master being to get her into Lune Deep, where they would have above 20 fathoms of water. After continuing in this way, now on one course, now on another, never getting more than about 6 fathoms, the water suddenly shoaled to 5, and then to 4. fathoms, and at 10 p.m. the vessel struck. Finding that she would not come off, they clewed up the sails, and at about 11.30 she was found to have 15 feet of water in her. At 2.30 a.m. the lifeboat coming off, upon which the crew expressed a wish to get into her, but to this the lifeboat's crew refused to consent, telling them that they were in no danger, and that two steam tugs were coming out to tow them into port. At about 3.30 a.m. the vessel floated off with the tide, and a steam boat having come up took hold of her and towed her into Fleetwood, where she arrived at about 7 a.m. the same day. The place where the vessel had grounded was on a shoal on the edge of Morecambe Flats, between Fisher Bank and Danger Patch. The vessel, it need hardly be said, was very seriously damaged.

These being the facts of the case, the first question, which the Board of Trade have asked us is, "Whether " the master was justified in taking the vessel to sea " with a list as described in the evidence, and whether " such list affected the navigation of the vessel?" We were told by some of the witnesses that the vessel had on leaving a list of about half a strake, by others that it was as much as 10°; and that in the course of the voyage, and when the deck load had become saturated with water, it had increased to about 20°. But whether the deck load, which consisted of only 23 1/2 standards, weighing, when saturated with water, less than 50 tons, out of a total of 331 standards, weighing about 700 tons, besides 120 tons of stone ballast in her bottom, did or did not contribute to the list, the assessors are clearly of opinion that it had nothing to do with the casualty. The list may possibly have somewhat affected the steering of the vessel, but of this there is no proof, and the assessors are of opinion that under the circumstances the master was justified in going to sea.

The second question which we are asked is, "Whether " the master was justified in attempting to enter Fleet- " wood Harbour without the assistance of a pilot?" It seems that the pilots are usually taken off Morecambe Lightship, but that on this day they did not leave the harbour at all; and as it was blowing a strong gale from about N.W., which was dead on shore, and the mate assumed to be able to take the vessel in, having been resident at Fleetwood for about 9 years, engaged during that time in fishing and navigating these waters, the assessors think that the master was justified in attempting to enter the harbour. They think that with the gale that was then blowing, and with a list of 20°, it would not have been prudent to bring the vessel to, and that the best course was to run for the harbour. The master was asked why he had not signalled for a pilot, but he answered that in all probability his signals would not have been seen from Fleetwood; and that, even if they had, the pilot boat could not have come out in sufficient time to take them in, it being low water, and the wind dead against them.

The third question which we are asked is, "Whether " the master took proper measures to ascertain and " verify the position of the vessel, after sighting " Morecambe Bay Light on 28th October?" and the fourth question is, "Whether safe and proper courses " were then and thereafter set and steered, and " whether due and proper allowance was made for " tides, currents, leeway, and error in compasses?" We are told that when they passed Morecambe Bay Lightship it bore N.N.E., distant 4 miles; and we have no reason to think that that was not the correct bearing and distance of the light at that time. The question, however, is, what courses were steered from this, and what measures were taken to ascertain and verify the position of the vessel from time to time. It seems that after passing the Morecambe Bay Light, the vessel was put upon an E. 1/2 N., which was a very proper course, and if made good would have taken them straight into Lune Deep, and would have carried them right up to the entrance to Fleetwood Harbour. But when they had been on an E. 1/2 N. course for about half an hour, the master became alarmed at seeing the town lights of Blackpool so distinctly, and thought that he had been set down too far to the southward, and he accordingly altered the course to E.N.E. until he brought the Morecambe Bay Light to bear W. by N. When again he got sight of the Wyre Light, the mate told us that he went up into the mizen rigging, and found the Morecambe Bay Light bearing W. by N., and the Wyre Light E. by S., the vessel being on the line between them, where she no doubt would have been, had the bearings been correctly taken, the Wyre Light bearing about E. by S. from the Morecambe Bay Light. And if the master had then kept the vessel on an E. by S. course heading directly for the Wyre Light, that again would have taken him into the Lune Deep, and straight for the entrance to Fleetwood Harbour. Fearing, however, to be set too far to leeward, the master instead of putting her on an E. by S. course, put her on an E. 1/2 N. coarse, a point and a half more to the northward, and then finding the water shoaling, and being under the impression that he was to the south instead of, as he was, to the north of the Lune Deep, he altered the course to E.N.E., another point and a half to the northward. Finding the water to be shoaling on that course, he again altered the course to E. 1/2 N., and again finding. it to be shoaling on that course, he altered it back again to E.N.E. In this way he got on to the edge of the Morecambe Flats, and passing to the northward of the Fisher and Danger patches, struck on a shoal between them and Fisher Bank. Now the mistake of the master was in not taking cross bearings of the Walney Island Light and Wyre Light, when he had those two lights in view, and when he was ignorant of his true position. Had he done so, it would have shown him at once that he was to the north, and not, as he imagined, to the south of the Lune Deep; and he would then have kept the vessel more to the southward, instead of keeping her away to the northward, first on an E. 1/2 N., and then on an E.N.E. course. As regards the compasses we have no reason to think that they were in any respect at fault. The master told us that it was his practice to take azimuth observations whenever the weather permitted; that he did not believe that his compasses were in error; and that on examining them after his arrival in Fleetwood he found them to be quite correct. The mate indeed seemed to think that the compasses must have been at fault, for he said that in making both Cape Clear and Holyhead they had found that the vessel had made a good deal of leeway. But the wind being from the N.W., and on the ship's port side, the effect of leeway would be to set her to the southward, whereas the mistake in this case was that she got too far to the northward. The fault of the master was in keeping the vessel on a course too far to the northward, and not verifying his position by taking cross bearings of Walney Island Light and Wyre Light, when he had them in view.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Whether " proper soundings were taken, and whether proper " measures were taken to ascertain their correctness?" The lead seems to have been kept going almost continually from soon after passing Morecambe Bay Lightship, until she grounded; and to insure their being taken correctly, the boatswain or acting second mate was stationed alongside the man in the chains to check the soundings. The master and chief officer, however, being under the impression that they were, or ought to have been, in the Lune Deep, where they would have had above 20 fathoms water, imagined that the soundings were not being correctly taken; and accordingly on the man reporting 6 fathoms, the master took the line, and by sounding three or four times, convinced himself that they were being correctly taken. We have no doubt that the soundings were correctly taken and reported, for the depths stated to have been given correspond with the depths shewn on the chart to the north of the Lune Deep, where the vessel undoubtedly was all the time.

The sixth, seventh, and eighth questions which we are asked are "Whether the vessel was navigated with " proper and seamanlike care;" "Whether the master " and officers are or any of them is in default;" and " What was the cause of the casualty?" That the vessel was not navigated with proper and seamanlike care, and that the whole blame for the casualty rests with the master, can admit of no doubt whatever. The chief officer no doubt believed that he had a better knowledge of the navigation than he really had; but the navigation was under the master's direction, and with him therefore the responsibility for the casualty must rest. He was under the impression that he was to the south instead of being to the north of the Lune Deep, and neglected to adopt the means that were open to him of verifying his position, by taking the bearings of Walney Island Light and the Wyre Light, which would have shewn him at once that he was to the north of the Lune Deep.

Lastly, it is said that "the Board of Trade are of opinion that the certificate of the master should be " dealt with." The master has no doubt shewn in this case a desire to navigate his vessel with care, he was on deck actively engaged in the discharge of his duties, and had a man constantly in the chains taking soundings, and in other respects also he has shewn himself to be a careful navigator. On the other hand he did not, when he was out of his course, in shallow water, and in ignorance of his true position, take the means, which were open to him, of verifying his position, namely, by taking cross bearings of Walney Island Light and Wyre Light. It is said that this was an error of judgment, but in our opinion it was an act of negligence, for which under ordinary circumstances we should undoubtedly have dealt with his certificate. We are told, however, in the present case that this gentleman has been for five years in command of this vessel ; that for the previous ten years he was in another vessel, for two years as 2nd mate, for five years as chief officer, and for three years as master; and that this is the first casualty with which he has ever met. His owner, too, Mr. Stewart, has given him a very high character for steadiness and attention to his duties. I find also from a note on his certificate that an aneroid barometer was presented to him by the Board of Trade for services rendered to shipwrecked seamen of the "Margaret Pollock" on the 20th of September 1872. Taking all these circumstances into consideration we shall not deal with his certificate.

Here then the case might have terminated, but Mr. Nelson asked to be allowed to give the Court particulars of the original cost of the vessel, of the amounts expended upon her, and of the sums for which she had been insured by them; particulars, which are so frequently asked for, and so often refused in these cases. He accordingly produced Mr. Stewart, the managing owner, who in answer to questions put to him by Mr. Nelson, stated that they had bought the vessel in 1870, and had then given for her 3,307l.; that in 1875 she was restored to her class, Al for 8 years, at an expense of 4,132l.; that in 1881, on the occasion of the half time survey, they spent 1,566l. upon her; and that in September 1884 she was repaired at New York, and then got one year's extension of her class. Mr. Stewart also told us that previous to 1875 she was insured for 3,500l., but that after the extensive repairs to her in that year she was insured for 5,000l.; that in 1881 the insurance was reduced to 3,000l.; and that on her last voyage, when she met with the casualty in question, she was insured for only 1,500l. on an estimated value of 3,000l. Mr. Stewart also told us that the outfit was not insured, and that the freight, which amounted to 792l., and of which no part had been advanced, was insured for only 500l. These particulars were given to the Court, not in answer to questions put by the learned Counsel for the Board of Trade, but at the express invitation of Mr. Nelson, the solicitor for the master; and the Court has had so many instances where owners have, by the advice of their solicitors, refused to give the information asked for, that in justice to Mr. Stewart the details are here given. Mr. Nelson stated that the owner desired to give the information, as he had nothing to conceal; whether it may be inferred therefrom that, when the information is refused, the owners have anything to conceal, the Court is quite unable to say.

The Court is not asked to give any costs.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

WM. PARFITT,

ROBERT HARLAND,

Assessors.

L 367. 2146. 170.—11/84. Wt. 36. E. & S.