Wreck Report for 'Benlarig', 1887

(No. 3214.)

"BENLARIG" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Westminster, on the 28th of March 1887, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captains KNOX, R.N., RONALDSON, and PARFITT, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the loss of five of the crew of the steam vessel "BENLARIG," of Leith, on the 17th of November last, near the Bar of the River Min, China.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed, that every effort was made by those on board the "Benlarig" to save the life of the man who fell overboard, and that the master was justified in lowering the gig instead of a life boat for the purpose; and that no undue delay occurred in doing so. The Court however is of opinion that four hands instead of three, besides the officer in charge, should have been sent away in her, and that the master ought not to have left the boat to be picked up by the pilot cutter, but should have done so himself before steaming away to the anchorage under the White Dogs, the more so as he had every reason to believe that a gale was coming on. But under the circumstances, seeing that he acted under the pilot's advice, and was not himself acquainted with the navigation of the river, the Court will not deal with his certificate.

Dated this 28th day of March 1887.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

HENRY KNOX,

 

 

 

Captain R.N.,

Assessors.

 

 

A. RONALDSON,

 

 

 

WM. PARFITT,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 28th of March instant, when Mr. Cagney appeared for the Board of Trade, and Mr. Nelson for the owners and master of the "Benlarig." Four witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Cagney handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Nelson then produced a witness, and having addressed the Court on behalf of his parties, and Mr. Cagney having been heard in reply, 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 "Benlarig" is an iron screw steamship, belonging to the Port of Leith, of 2,265 tons gross, and 1481 tons net register, and is fitted with engines of 300 horsepower. She was built at Linthouse, in the county of Lanark, in the year 1881, and at the time of the casualty which forms the subject of the present inquiry she was the property of the Ben Company, Mr. William Thomson, junior, of Constitution Street, Leith, being the managing owner. She left Foochow in the River Min at about 11 a.m. of the 17th of November last, bound to New York, viâ Amoy, having a crew of 36 hands all told, two Chinese stowaways, and about 1,800 tons of tea, and drawing about 18 feet 3 inches aft, and in charge of a European pilot named Black. She proceeded down the river intending to pass out by the North Channel, and at about 2 p.m. was about half a mile below No. 2 buoy, when a seaman named Le Cocq, who was out on the port anchor putting an extra lashing round it, fell overboard. A buoy was immediately thrown to him from the bridge and two gratings from aft, but he missed them; upon which orders were given to stop and reverse full speed; and the captain coming on to the bridge, directed one of the boats to be got out. At the time it was blowing strong from the N.E. right up the reach, and the vessel having come round with her head to the S.S.E., thus making her starboard side the lee side, the gig, which was the aftermost boat on that side, was got out, and the second officer and three hands were sent away to pick up the man. The vessel continued to drift under the influence of the wind and tide in about a S.S.W. direction for about a quarter of an hour, when the pilot thinking that she was getting into dangerous water, told the captain that he could not follow the boat any further, and advised him to go to the anchorage under the White Dogs Islands, which were some 12 miles beyond the bar of the Min, as a gale was coming on, saying that he would send the pilot cutter to pick up the boat and bring her to them to the anchorage. Signals were accordingly made to the pilot cutter, which was lying-to outside the bar; but finding that she did not come to them, the "Benlarig" ran down to her, and at about 3.20 p.m. the same day arrived alongside, when the pilot was put on board her, and she then made for the mouth of the river. The "Benlarig," however, proceeded to her anchorage under the White Dogs, arriving there at about 4.30 p.m. There she remained until 5 p.m. of the following day, when nothing having been heard of either the boat or the men, she proceeded on her voyage. Nothing more was seen or heard of the boat, but on the 20th of the same month the bodies of some of the men were picked up, showing that in all probability the boat had been upset and that they had all been drowned.

These being the facts of the case, the first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "What " was the cause of the casualty which happened to or " on board of the 'Benlarig' on or about the 17th No- " vember last, whereby loss of life ensued." According to the chief officer, who was at the time on the top-gallant forecastle, Le Cocq was astride of the anchor, which was hanging over the port bow, putting an extra lashing on it, when the ship took a heavy lurch, and Le Cocq becoming alarmed made a spring for the rail, but missing his hold, fell into the water, and was carried away aft. How it was that the boat and the four men in her were lost, we have no means of knowing. She may, as Mr. Nelson has suggested, have been driven on the sands which lie on the south side of the North Channel, but when or under what circumstances we have no evidence before us to show.

The second question which we are asked is, "Were " the 'Benlarig's' boats so carried as to be at all times " fit and ready for use, and so as to be capable of being " lowered without undue delay?" The vessel it seems had six boats in all, four of which were lifeboats, two large and two smaller ones; in addition to which she had a dingy and a gig. The four lifeboats were placed immediately abaft the bridge, the dingy and gig on the poop, the dingy being on the port side and the gig on the starboard side. They were all on chocks, and covered with tarpaulins; but the tackles were rove and hooked on ready for use, so that it would only be necessary to cut the lashings and haul away to get the boats out. According to Mr. Potter, the Superintendent of the Ben Line, any of the boats could have been got out and into the water in about six minutes in harbour, the dingy and gig in about five minutes, but of course it would take somewhat longer to do so when out at sea.

The third question which we are asked is, "Was " the gig lowered without undue delay And under " the circumstances was it proper for the master to " send a gig rather than a lifeboat to pick up the man?" According to the captain and officers, it took about 10 minutes from the time that the order was given to get the gig into the water and to send her away with her crew in her, and that, in our opinion, was not an undue time under the circumstances. As regards the launching of the gig instead of a lifeboat, we can hardly suppose that the master would have done so if he had thought that there was any risk to the gig. It seems that when the steamer left her she was not more than about 100 yards to leeward of them, and was trying, but in vain, to pull back to the steamer, but although they could make no way against the wind and tide, there is no reason to think that they could not have kept her clear of the sand by pulling up the river. The gig, too, we are told, required only some 4 or 5 men to man her, whereas the lifeboat would have required from 8 to 12 hands, and as the gig was on the lee or starboard quarter, the wind being from the N.E., and the vessel's head to the S.S.E., she could be much more easily lowered than any of the other boats. On the whole, we think that the master acted wisely in lowering the gig instead of one of the lifeboats. The three next questions may very well be taken together; they are as follow:—4. "Was there any" thing to prevent the 'Benlarig' from being kept " near the boat after it was lowered, or returning, or " going to a convenient anchorage, or rendering the " boat assistance or succour?" 5. "Was the course " taken by the master of the 'Benlarig' after Le Cocq " fell overboard, and thenceforward, a proper course?" and 6. "Was every possible effort made to assist "Le Cocq, and the boat, and those in her, and to save " life?" There can, I think, be no doubt that everything was done to try and save Le Cocq's life; a life. buoy and two gratings were thrown to him, and seeing that he had missed them, and was dropping astern, the engines were stopped, and reversed full speed, and a boat got out, and sent to try to pick him up. But the question is, whether the course taken in regard to the leaving the gig and her crew was a right one. The boat, as I have said, was not more than about 100 yards away, and was endeavouring to pull back to the steamer against wind and tide, when the latter left her. We are told also that she was between the steamer and buoy No. 2, which marks the northern limit of the sands on the south side of the channel, and that the buoy was about half a mile away to leeward of them. If then the steamer, which was lying across the river with her head to the S.S.E., had, instead of putting on her engines ahead and pursuing her course down the river, backed astern with her helm hard-a-starboard, she would have gone stern foremost across 'the river, until she had got the northward of the buoy, when she could easily have steamed to leeward of the boat, which could then have run down to her and been picked up. This is the course which, in the opinion of the Assessors, should have been taken, and why the pilot advised the master to leave the boat, and run for his anchorage, we are quite at a loss to see.

The last question which we are asked is, "Whether the " master is in default?" and it is added that "The Board " of Trade are of opinion that the certificate of the " master should be dealt with." Now although we think that what I have just stated would have been the proper course to take, it must be borne in mind that the vessel was in charge of a duly licensed pilot, pilotage being compulsory there, owing to the dangerous character of the River Min, and it is only in very exceptional cases that a captain would be justified in taking the charge of the vessel out of the pilot's hands. The pilot, we are told, informed the master that they were getting into dangerous waters, and that it would not be prudent to follow the boat any further, and he advised him to run for the anchorage under the White Dogs, leaving the boat to be picked up by the pilot cutter. It was, as I have said, in our opinion very bad advice; for there would have been no difficulty in his backing the ship and steaming up the river, until he had got above No. 2 buoy, and in then picking the boat up. We think, however, that under the circumstances, and in the position in which the master was placed, with a valuable ship and cargo in his charge, and ignorant of the navigation of the river, he was almost bound to follow the pilot's advice. He has, we are told, been for the last 20 years in the service of the Ben Line Company, for the first six years as chief mate, and for the last 14 years as master, and in command of the "Benlarig" for the last five years. If he has acted wrongly, he has not done any wrongful act or default for which we could deal with his certificate; the utmost that can be said is that he has been guilty of an error of judgment, in acting on the pilot's advice, and for that the Court never deals with an officer's certificate.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

HENRY KNOX,

 

 

 

Captain R.N.,

Assessors.

 

 

A. RONALDSON,

 

 

 

WM. PARFITT,

 

50022—125. 200.—4/87. Wt. 12. E. & S.