Wreck Report for 'Constance' and 'Benton', 1884

(No. 2399.)

"CONSTANCE" AND "BENTON" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at the Sessions House, Westminster, on the 12th day of December 1884, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captains KNOX, R.N., RONALDSON, and BEASLEY, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the loss of the sailing ship "CONSTANCE," of Shoreham, and the loss of two of her crew, through collision with the steamship "BENTON," of London, off the Varne Lightship on the 20th of October 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 said collision was due to the "Constance" not having exhibited her coloured lights to the "Benton" in time to enable the latter to keep out of the way, and that no blame attaches to those on board the "Benton," who did all that could be reasonably expected of them, both to avoid the collision and also to save the lives of the crew of the "Constance."

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

Dated the 12th day of December 1884.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report

 

(Signed)

HENRY KNOX,

Captain R.N.,

A. RONALDSON,

THS. BEASLEY,

Assessors.

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 12th day of December instant, when Mr. Muir Mackenzie appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Botterell for the owners, Mr. Roche for the master, and Mr. Butler Aspinall for the second officer of the "Benton." The master of the "Constance" was present, but was not represented by either counsel or solicitor. Seven 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. Mr. Roche and Mr. Aspinall then addressed the Court for their respective parties, and the master of the "Constance" having been heard on his own behalf, and Mr. Muir Mackenzie having replied for the Board of Trade, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions upon which its opinion had been asked.

The story told by the witnesses from the "Constance" is, that she was a small fishing lugger, of 14 tons register, belonging to Mr. Edward Edwardes of Worthing, and that she left Dover at about 1.30 p.m. of the 19th of October last, with a crew of seven hands, for the purpose of fishing. On arriving on her fishing ground, she cast her nets, and continued fishing till about midnight, when the nets were drawn and she stood in for the land. At about 3.30 am. of the 20th she was between 2 and 3 miles from the Varne Lightship, and was under jib, foresail, and mizen, heading to the N.N.E., and making about 3 knots, the weather being clear and fine, and the wind light from about N.W. The master at the time was aft steering, and there was a man, named Bridger, forward, looking out, when the masthead and the green lights of a steamer, which afterwards proved to be the "Benton," were observed about 2 points on the starboard bow. Thinking that they were going clear, the master of the "Constance" continued his course, without showing any light, but in about a minute afterwards the green light of the steamer was shut in and the red light appeared, and in another minute the steamer came into them, striking them on the starboard quarter, about ten feet from the stern. They had barely time to cut the lashings of the oars and to throw them into the water, before the "Constance" sank from under them, leaving them all in the water. Ultimately, however, five of the crew were picked up by one of the "Benton's" boats and taken to Dover, but the other two were drowned.

The story told by the "Benton" is as follows:—She is an iron screw steamship, belonging to the Port of London, of 911 tons gross, and 587 tons net register, and is fitted with engines of 90 horse power. She was built at Sunderland in the year 1872, and at the time of the casualty, which forms the subject of this inquiry, was the property of Mr. Ralph Chapman of Newcastle-upon-Tyne and others, Mr. Ralph Chapman being the managing owner. She left Newcastle on the 18th October last, with a crew of 17 hands all told, and a cargo of bricks, cement, and coal, bound to Vigo, and at about 3.30 a.m. of the 20th had arrived off the Varne Lightship, which then bore S.E. by E., distant from 2 to 3 miles. The weather, we are told, was clear and fine, and the vessel, which had her fore trysail and fore and main staysails set, was heading about S.W. by W. magnetic, and making about 8 knots an hour. The captain was in the cabin, having gone below some three or four minutes before to lay off the vessel's course on the chart; but the second officer and the man at the wheel were on the upper bridge, and there was a man forward looking out, when a bright light was observed a little on the starboard bow, and was duly reported. The second officer, thinking that it was the light of a vessel which they were overtaking, at once ordered the engines to be stopped, and the helm to be put to port; but almost immediately afterwards it was seen to be a smack crossing them from port to starboard, upon which he at once ordered the helm to be steadied and the engines to be reversed full speed, but not in time to avoid running into her. At the moment of the collision the captain came out on deck, and at once ordered the jolly boat to be swung out, and the engines to be kept going full speed astern, which had the effect of bringing the vessel round on a course directly opposite to that on which she had been before, when the engines were again put on slowly ahead, until they heard the cries of the men in the water, upon which the boat was dropped into the water, and, as I have already stated, they succeeded in picking up five out of the seven hands, which had formed the crew of the "Constance."

These being the facts of the case, the first question which we have been asked is, "Had the 'Constance,' " on the morning when the collision took place, " ready at hand a lantern with a green glass on the " one side and a red glass on the other side, as " required by Article 10 of the Regulations for " Preventing Collisions at Sea?" We were told by the master of the "Constance," that the only lantern which they had on deck at the time was the hand lantern, usually carried by fishing boats with a white glass in front, and a red and green glass on either side, and which by turning the lamp would shew a white, a red, or a green light to an approaching vessel. This lantern, he told us, was at the time being used as the binnacle light, and was placed on the deck about a foot forward of the binnacle, the master, who was at the helm, being some three feet abaft the binnacle. The lantern, he told us, was out of his reach so that if it had been necessary to show it to an approaching vessel, he must either have left the wheel, or have called the look-out man from his post to shew the light. In the opinion, therefore, of the assessors, the lantern was not so placed as, in the terms of the 10th Article, to be "ready at hand" to be exhibited to an approaching vessel in sufficient time to avoid collision, at all events on an occasion of this kind.

The second question which we are asked is, "When " the 'Constance' was approaching or being approached " by the 'Benton' was such lantern exhibited on board the 'Constance' in sufficient time to prevent " a collision, and in the manner required by the said " Article? If not, is the skipper of the 'Constance' to " blame for the omission?" It is not pretended that the lantern was. ever exhibited prior to the collision, and the question, therefore, is, whether the master of the "Constance" is to blame. It was said that, in having only one light for the binnacle and to show to an approaching vessel, the master was only following the general practice of the trade; but that, in our opinion, does not excuse the master; he had a riding light on board, as well as the lantern with the coloured glasses; and whilst the former might have been used for throwing a light on the binnacle, he should have had the latter within reach, so as to have shewn it to an approaching vessel, and had he, as soon as he saw the green and mast head lights of the "Benton," have shewn it, the latter would have at once known the course on which the "Constance" was, and might have taken the proper measures to avoid her.

The third question which we are asked is, "Was a " proper look-out kept on board the 'Constance' at the " time of and before the collision?" There seems to be no question that the "Benton's" lights were good, that they were burning brightly, and that they could, therefore, readily have been seen at the distance of at least two miles. The master, too, has told us that he did not see them, and that they were not reported by the look-out man forward until about two minutes before the collision, and when, therefore, she must have "been very close to them. It is not to be wondered at that the master did not see them, for he was aft at the wheel, and the sails, with the wind on his port side, would necessarily conceal any object which was approaching them on the starboard bow. But there seems no reason why the lights should not have been seen and reported at an earlier period by the look-out man forward, but he was unfortunately drowned, and we can only suppose that he was not at the time keeping a good look-out.

I will take the fourth and sixth questions together; they are as follows:—"Under the circumstances ought " the 'Constance' to have been seen from on board " the 'Benton' sooner than she was; and was a good " and proper look-out kept on board the 'Benton,' " and was the 'Constance' reported as soon as she " ought to have been?" From the position of the light on the "Constance's" deck, about a foot forward off and shewing into the binnacle, and from the sails being over on the starboard side, it may naturally be supposed that her light would not be seen from a vessel approaching her on the starboard bow, until the two vessels had got very near to one another. Ought, however, the "Constance" herself to have been seen from the "Benton" sooner than she was P It is to be remembered that the two vessels were approaching one another at an angle of only 3 points, the course of the "Constance" being N.N.E., that of the "Benton" S.W. by W. Moreover, as Mr. Aspinall has observed, the sails of the "Constance" were tanned, and would, therefore, not be so easily seen on a dark, though clear, night, as white sails would have been; the more so, as we were told by one of the witnesses, that, although it was clear overhead, there was a slight mist on the horizon. Under these circumstances the Assessors are disposed to think that the "Constance" was seen as soon as she well could have been from the "Benton;" and that there is, therefore, no reason to think that there was not a good and proper look-out being kept on board that vessel, the second officer being on the upper bridge, and there being a look-out man forward on the top gallant forecastle.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "When the " 'Benton' was approaching the 'Constance' so as to " involve risk of collision, did she slacken speed, stop, " and reverse as soon as she ought to have done? If " not, is any, and what, person on board the 'Benton' " to blame in this respect?" As soon as the light of the "Constance" was perceived by the "Benton" the second officer at once ordered the engines to be stopped and the helm to be put to port in the belief, which under the circumstances, was not unreasonable that they were overtaking some other vessel, which, in accordance with the terms of Article 11, was shewing them a white light over her stern. As soon, however, as he made out that the smack was standing across his bows from port to starboard he at once ordered the helm to be steadied and the engines to be put full speed astern. He might, indeed, instead of steadying the helm, have ordered it to be put hard-a-starboard, and in that case it is possible that he would have gone clear; but, under the circumstances, it is not a case in which we should be disposed to blame him for having only steadied the helm. The speed was slackened and the engines stopped and reversed as soon as they reasonably could be.

The seventh question which we are asked is, "Was " every possible effort made on board the 'Benton' to " save life?" We were told that after the collision the engines were kept going astern full speed until she had come round on an opposite course, when they were put slowly ahead until they had got back to the spot where the collision occurred, when, hearing the shouts of the men in the water, the captain ordered the jolly boat, which had in the meantime been swung over the side, to be dropped into the water, and they succeeded in picking up five out of seven of the crew of the "Constance." In our opinion, the steps taken by the master with a view to save the lives of these unfortunate persons were proper and judicious, and we think that the captain deserves great credit for his conduct on the occasion.

The eighth question which we are asked is, "Does " any blame attach to the skipper of the 'Constance' " for the casualty?" The only ground on which blame can, in our opinion, be imputed to the master of the " Constance" is for not having had the lantern with the coloured lights ready at hand to exhibit to an approaching vessel, and for not having shewn the green light to the "Benton" as soon as he saw her green and masthead lights, so as to indicate to those on board the course on which the "Constance" was.

The ninth question which we are asked is, "Does " any blame attach to the second officer or the look-out " man for the casualty?" In our opinion no blame attaches to the second officer, or to any person on board the "Benton," who seem to have done all that could be reasonably expected of them, under the circumstances, to avoid the collision, as well as to save the lives of the crew of the "Constance."

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

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

HENRY KNOX,

Captain R.N.,

A. RONALDSON,

THS. BEASLEY,

Assessors.

L 367. 2174. 170.—12/84. Wt. 36. E. & S.