Wreck Report for 'Henrietta', 1887

(No. 3138.)

"HENRIETTA " (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at the Sessions House, Westminster, on the 27th of January 1887, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captains RONALDSON and COSENS, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the stranding of the steamship "HENRIETTA," near Kingston Coastguard Station, in the English Channel, on the 8th of December 1886.

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 her having been insufficiently ballasted for the voyage, for that season of the year, owing to which she was drifted some 11 miles to the northward of her course by the southerly gale which she encountered, and that although the master is to blame for not having taken a cast of the lead to ascertain his true position, when the wind had gone round to the south and was blowing hard, the Court will not, under the special circumstances of the case, deal with his certificate.

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

Dated this 27th day of January 1887.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

ARTHUR RONALDSON,

Assessors.

 

 

WILLIAM COSENS,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 27th of January 1887, when Mr. Howard Smith appeared for the Board of Trade, and Mr. Nelson for the owners and master of the "Henrietta." Seven witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Howard Smith 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 his parties, and Mr. Howard Smith 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 "Henrietta" was an iron screw steamship, belonging to the Port of London, of 1,447 tons gross and 925 tons net register, and was fitted with engines of 120 horse-power. She was built at Whitby in the year 1882, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. Reginald Ryley, of 88, Bishopsgate Street Within, in the City of London, shipowner, and others, Mr. Ryley being the managing owner. She left Amsterdam at about 8 a.m. of the 5th of December last in water ballast, with a crew of 23 hands all told, and from 55 to 60 tons of coals in her bunkers, bound to Cardiff. During the day the weather, we are told, was fine, but upon the 6th they encountered strong head winds, and at 2 a.m. of the 7th, when they were off the South Foreland, it was blowing so hard, that it was found that she would not steer, and that they could make no progress against the wind and sea; and accordingly the master determined to run for shelter under the North Foreland. There they remained dodging about until daylight, when they proceeded to the Downs and came to anchor, the wind at the time blowing strong from about W.S.W. At 2.30 p.m., the wind having gone round to the N.W., and the weather having every appearance of moderating, the master proceeded on his voyage, and at 5.30 p.m. passed Dungeness, distant 2 miles, whence she was put on a S. W. by W. 1/2 W., course by the standard compass, equivalent to W. by S. a quarter S. magnetic, there being a point and a quarter of easterly deviation on that course. At 8 p.m., finding that the vessel was more to the southward than he expected, the wind at the time being from the N.W., and consequently on his starboard bow, the master altered his course to W.S.W. by the standard compass, equivalent to W. 3/4 S. magnetic. At 9.55 p.m. they passed the Royal Sovereign Lightship, distant about one mile, and the course was then altered to W. 1/4 S. by the standard compass, equivalent to W. 3/4 N. magnetic. At 11.30 p.m. Beachy Head was abreast, distant 4 miles, as ascertained by a four-point bearing, and the vessel was continued on the same course, the wind then blowing a fresh breeze from about west. It was the chief officer's watch on deck from midnight to 4 a.m., and at 3 a.m. he went to the chartroom, where the master was, and told him that the wind had shifted to S.S.W., and was increasing, upon which the master, but without going on deck, ordered him to put the vessel's head off a point, to W. by S. 1/4 S. by the standard compass, equivalent to west southerly magnetic At 4 a.m. the captain came on deck, when, finding that the wind had increased considerably, and was backing to the south, he altered the course to W.S.W. by the compass, equivalent to W. 3/4 S. magnetic. At 5 a.m., finding that the wind was still increasing, he altered his course to S.W. by W. by the compass, or W. by S. 3/4 S. magnetic. At 5.45 the second officer, who was with the master upon the bridge, suddenly called out that he saw land on the lee beam, upon which the master immediately told him to take a cast of the lead, which gave them 6 fathoms. The master thereupon ordered the helm to be put hard down, and was told it was so, upon which he ran aft to see whether the wheel was acting, and found that it was, and that the vessel was not answering her helm. He then ordered the port anchor to be let go, which was done, and although it did not hold, it had the effect of bringing the vessel round with her head to the south, whence it fell off to east and then to the northward, and soon afterwards she went ashore close to the Coastguard Station at Kingston, between Worthing and Littlehampton, but rather nearer to the latter place. Having thrown over a float with a line attached to it, they succeeded in establishing a communication with the shore, and, with the assistance of the coastguard men, succeeded at about 7.30 a.m. in getting to the shore in safety. We are told that the vessel was not then making any water, and that she did not do so on any of the three following days, but on the fourth day, a gale having sprung up, the vessel, which was lying across two groynes, got bilged; and although they have not, it is said, abandoned all hope of getting her off, she still lies high up on the beach.

These being the facts of the case, the first question, upon which our opinion has been asked, is, "Whether, " when the vessel left Amsterdam, she was in good and " seaworthy condition; and whether she was properly " and sufficiently ballasted for a voyage at that season of " the year?" So far, indeed, as the hull of the vessel is concerned, we have no reason to think that it was not in a thoroughly good and seaworthy condition. She was built, as I have stated, in the year 1882, under special survey of Lloyd's, and was classed 100 A 1. In April last she passed Lloyd's survey, and was then found to be in good condition; and we could hardly have a better proof that she was in good condition when she left Amsterdam, than the fact that she had just brought a cargo of linseed from Taganrog, and had delivered it undamaged and in good order. The fact, too, that she remained upon this exposed beach for four days without making any water, shews that she must have been an exceptionally good and strong vessel. So far, therefore, as the hull is concerned, we have no doubt that it was in a good and seaworthy condition.

But was she properly and sufficiently ballasted for the voyage on which she was bound, having regard to the season of the year? It seems that she had two ballast tanks forward, and two abaft of the engine-room compartment: No. 1 tank, when filled with salt water, contained 67.9 tons—No. 2, 84.4 tons, making a total of 152.3 tons. No. 3 tank, which was immediately abaft the engine-room compartment, contained 54.9 tons, and No. 4 tank 59.8 tons, making a total of 114.7 tons. So that the total quantity of ballast in her bottom, with all the tanks full, would be 267 tons; and that on the assumption that they were filled with salt water; but on the present occasion, having been filled at Amsterdam, they contained only fresh water, which would diminish the weight by some 5 or 6 tons. In addition to this, we are told that she had, on leaving Amsterdam, from 55 to 60 tons of coal in her bunkers, of which her daily consumption would be about 9 tons, and that there were also in the fore peak two tanks of fresh water, containing together about 10 to 12 tons. Thus laden she would, according to Mr. Adler, a naval architect and the chief draughtsman to Messrs. Turnbull and Sons, of Whitby, the builders, draw about 9 feet forward and 11 feet aft, and have an exposed side amidships of about 10 feet 1 inch. We were told, however, by the master, who has commanded her since March 1883, that he had made five voyages in her, in ballast, exclusive of similar voyages in the Mediterranean. One of those voyages, he said, was from Malta to Cardift, but on that occasion, it appeared, that besides the water ballast she had 100 tons of stone ballast in her Three other of the voyages were from Amsterdam to the Tyne, and on those occasions she had only her water ballast; but a voyage from Amsterdam to the Tyne is a very different thing from a voyage from Amsterdam to Cardiff; moreover only one of those was in the winter, the other two being in the spring and summer respectively. The fifth voyage was from Limerick to Cardiff, on which, no doubt, for part of the way she would be exposed to some risk if she encountered a gale from the S.W., but it is much shorter than a voyage from Amsterdam to Cardiff. The fact then that she had performed those voyages in safety would not necessarily justify the master in thinking that he could safely undertake a voyage from Amsterdam to Cardiff with the vessel so lightly ballasted, more especially in mid-winter. I have stated that, according to Mr. Adler, the vessel, laden as she was when she left Amsterdam, would have an exposed side of about 10 feet 1 inch amidships; but in addition to this she had a quarter deck 3 feet 8 1/2 inches, and a forecastle some 7 feet above the main deck. With such a side out of water the assessors are of opinion that she would drift rapidly to leeward; and that she did so is proved by the evidence of the master, who told us that after passing Dungeness, with the wind moderate from the N.W., and the vessel heading about W. by S. 1/4 S., he found before reaching the Royal Sovereign Lightship that she had got so much to the southward of their course that he had to alter the ship's head to the northward; and he also admitted that between 3 a.m., when the wind went round to the S.S.W., and 6 a.m., when the vessel went ashore, she must have been driven some 13 miles to leeward of her course. It was said indeed by Mr. Nelson that, although the vessel was sufficiently ballasted for a voyage, even in mid-winter, she was probably not sufficiently so for a gale such as that which she encountered. On the other hand, it was observed by Mr. Howard Smith that, whilst it is quite possible that she might have performed the voyage in safety had the weather continued throughout favorable, she had no right to expect that it would do so, more especially at that season of the year, and that the gale which she encountered was not more violent than she might reasonably have expected, and in that opinion the assessors are disposed to concur. Mr. Howard Smith has also called our attention to the case of the "H.A. Brightman," in which the facts were very similar to those in the present case. In that case the Court held that the vessel, having been insufficiently ballasted for the voyage, was not in a seaworthy condition, and the Court can come to no other conclusion in this case than that she was not, so far as the ballasting was concerned, in a seaworthy condition for the voyage on which she was bound, more especially at that season of the year.

The second question which we are asked is, "What " was the cause of the vessel steering badly on and " after the morning of the 7th of December?" There can be no doubt that the bad steering of the vessel was due to her high exposed side, and more especially to the great height of her bows out of water.

The third question which we are asked is, "Whether " safe and proper courses were set and steered after " passing Dungeness; whether due and proper allow- " ance was made for the tide; and whether, having " regard to the condition of the vessel, and the " state of the weather at or about 3 a.m. of the " 8th of December, the master kept her sufficiently " off the land?" The course steered after passing Beachy Head was, we are told, W. 3/4 N., but after 3 a.m., when the wind had come round to S.S.W., the course was altered some 2 1/2 to 2 3/4 points to the southward; the vessel, however, made so much leeway that she was drifted some 13 miles to the northward of her course. It is clear therefore that the courses steered were not safe or proper courses, sufficient allowance not having been made for leeway, and that she was not kept sufficiently off the land.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "Whether,. " when land was seen ahead, every possible effort was " made to avoid the stranding?" As is usual in these cases, whenever a master gets into difficulty, he generally does all he can to save the vessel; and this is not an exception to the general rule. The master, when he found that the vessel would not answer helm, due no doubt to her having got into too shallow water, ordered the anchor to be dropped, which had the effect of bringing her head to the south, but she was then too close to the shore.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Whether " the lead was used with sufficient frequency?" The master had been already warned, before he reached the Royal Sovereign Lightship, that the wind, although it was then moderate from the N.W., was setting him to the southward of his course; when, therefore, it had got round to the S.S.W., and began to blow hard, he might naturally expect that it would set him to the north, and towards the shore; and under these circumstances, having seen no lights since passing Beachy Head, it was his duty to have taken a cast or casts of the lead, so as to have satisfied himself that he was not being set too far in. The coarse which he ought then to have taken, if he had found that he was getting too near the shore, is one with which I shall presently deal; but in the opinion of the assessors it is clear that he is to blame for not having taken a cast or casts of the lead until the land was sighted, and when consequently he was close to it.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "Whether " a good and proper look-out was kept?" We have no reason to think that a good and proper look-out was not being kept. The master and second officer were on the bridge from 4 a.m. until the vessel struck and appear to have been keeping a good and proper lookout.

The seventh question which we are asked is, "Whether " the vessel was navigated with proper and seamanlike " care?" The assessors tell me that what the master should have done, when he found that the wind had gone round to the southward, and was blowing a gale, was to have taken a cast of the lead, and if he found that the vessel was being set in towards the shore, he should have put her on the other tack with her head off shore. And it is clear that he could have done this, for he told us that at 3 a.m., and again at 4 and 5 a.m., he altered the course, first nearly a point, then three quarters of a point, and then another point, and if she had not then answered her helm, he would have seen it, and there is nothing to shew that she failed to answer her helm until she had got into shallow water. The assessors are of opinion that the master did not navigate the vessel in a proper and seamanlike way.

The eighth question which we are asked is, "Having " regard to the above questions, was the stranding of " the vessel caused by any wrongful act or default on " the part of the master?" And it is added that, "in " the opinion of the Board of Trade the master's cer- " tificate should be dealt with." No doubt the master was not justified in leaving Amsterdam with his vessel so lightly ballasted as she was, seeing the voyage on which she was bound, and the season of the year; at the same time he had the experience of some former voyages in which he had sailed her with water ballast alone, and by this he might possibly have been misled: so far, therefore he seems to have been guilty only of an error of judgment.

But in not taking a cast or casts of the lead to ascertain his true position, when the wind had gone round to the southward and was blowing hard, and when therefore he might reasonbly expect that the vessel would be set in towards the land, he has in our opinion been guilty of neglect and default. At the same time the man seems to have been attending to his duties, having been on the bridge from 4 a.m. till she struck; and he might perhaps not unnaturally suppose that she would not be driven so far to leeward in so short a time. Under these circumstances we are disposed to take a lenient view of the case, and we shall therefore not deal with his certificate.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

ARTHUR RONALDSON,

Assessors.

 

 

WILLIAM COSENS,

 

50022—49. 200.—2/87. Wt. 12. E. & S.