| Unique ID: | 15304 | | Description: | Board of Trade Wreck Report for 'Earl of Jersey', 1887 | | Creator: | Board of Trade | | Date: | 1887 | | Copyright: | Out of copyright | | Partner: | SCC Libraries | | Partner ID: | Unknown |
Transcription
(No. 3226.)
"EARL OF JERSEY."
The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.
IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at the Sessions House, Westminster, on the 6th and 7th of April 1887, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captains METHVEN, PARISH, and DYER, R.N., as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the loss of the lives of nine of the crew of the sailing ship "EARL OF JERSEY," whilst on a voyage from Cardiff to Singapore.
Report of Court.
The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed, that prompt measures were in the first place taken by the master to save the life of Hood, the apprentice, when he fell overboard, but that he was not justified in wearing the ship, or in sending the boat away, or in permitting Robert Murray to jump into the sea; and that so far the master is to blame. Seeing, however, that he was no doubt prompted by the praiseworthy object of doing all in his power to save Hood's life, the Court regards it as an error of judgment on his part, and will therefore not deal with his certificate.
Dated this 7th day of April 1887.
(Signed)
H. C. ROTHERY,
Wreck Commissioner.
We concur in the above report.
(Signed)
R. METHVEN,
A. PARISH,
Assessors.
RICHD. C. DYER,
Annex to the Report.
This case was heard at Westminster on the 6th and 7th of April 1887, when the Hon. Alfred Lyttelton appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Nelson for the master of the "Earl of Jersey," and Mr. Gibson for Colonel Murray, the father of two of the apprentices on board the said ship, who were drowned. Twelve witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade, and, one by Mr. Nelson, Mr. Lyttelton handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Gibson then produced his client as a witness, and addressed the Court on his behalf, and Mr. Nelson having been heard for the master, and Mr. Lyttelton for the Board of Trade, 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 "Earl of Jersey" is a four-masted iron sailing ship belonging to the Port of London, of 2,129 tons gross, and 2,052 tons net register. She was built at Barrow-in-Furness in the county of Lancaster in the year 1883, and at the time of the casualty, which forms the subject of the present inquiry, she was the property of the Earl Ship Company, Limited, of No. 147, Leadenhall Street, in the City of London, the late Mr. David Brown being the manager. She left Cardiff on the 28th of May last with a crew of 34 hands, and a cargo of 3,200 tons of coal, bound to Singapore; and at noon of the 16th of July following, was in about latitude 40° south, and longitude 9° west, Gough Island bearing W.S.W. distant from 30 to 40 miles. At this time the vessel was under three lower topsails, main and mizen upper topsails, foresail, and fore topmast, main and jigger staysails, and was steering about E.S.E., making from 9 to 10 knots, the wind blowing a strong breeze from about north. As the glass was falling, and there was every appearance of bad weather coming on, the master at about 12.30 ordered the upper mizen topsail to be reefed, and the hands were going aloft for that purpose, when a young apprentice named Hood, in attempting to pass outside a man on the yard, fell from the lee side into the water. The captain, who was at the time on the poop, hearing shout, immediately ran over to the starboard side, and seeing Hood in the water, threw a rope to him, but which the boy missed. The master then ran forward to the bridge, which is just abaft the mizen mast, and having got hold of a life-buoy, ran aft with it, and threw it over the stern in the direction of the lad, but he was then too far astern to get hold of it. The captain then ordered the helm to be put hard-up so as to bring the vessel on the starboard tack, and directed the second officer to go to the port lifeboat, and get it ready to launch. In about 20 minutes the vessel had been brought-to on the starboard tack, and the port lifeboat being ready was put over the side, with the second mate, boatswain, steward, two A.B.'s, and two apprentices, named Middleton and Alexander Murray in her. Thinking however that she was not sufficiently manned, the captain then called for some heavy men as volunteers, and a man named Paulson came forward, but being too delicate he was rejected by the captain. Another man, Arscott, then volunteered, and whilst he was engaged taking off his oilskins, Robert Murray, an apprentice, and brother of one of the lads in the boat, said to the captain. "May I go sir?" upon which the captain asked him if he could swim, and on his replying that he could, the captain told him to jump; and the lad thereupon jumped from the stern into the sea; and the boat having in the meantime dropped astern, he was picked up and taken on board, and they then immediately began to pull to windward in the direction in which Hood had been last seen. They continued to see the boat still pulling to windward for about an hour, or an hour and an half, when a rain squall coming on the boat was lost sight of, and after that it was not again seen. As soon as they had lost sight of the boat, they began firing guns, and continued doing so until nearly all the powder was consumed, and on night coming on they sent up rockets, burnt blue lights, and placed a light at the end of the peak. At about 6 p.m. the wind shifted to about W.S.W., upon which the captain altered his course so as if possible to keep to leeward of the boat, should she be still afloat. On the following day it blew a gale, but the captain remained for about 3 days cruizing in the neighbourhood, when all hopes of ever again seeing either the boat or the unfortunate lad Hood having past, the vessel continued her voyage to Singapore, whence she has only recently returned to this country.
These being the facts of the case, the first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Whether " the vessel carried the boats and life-buoys required by " section 292 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1854; and " whether they were kept so as at all times to be fit and " ready for use?" By the 292nd section of the Merchant Shipping Act 1854, and Table S referred to therein, a sailing vessel of the size of the "Earl of Jersey," that is to say over 2.000 tons register, is required to carry four boats of certain dimensions; but not having any passengers on board it is not necessary that any of them should be a lifeboat, nor is she required to have any life-buoys on board. As a fact the "Earl of Jersey" had four boats, of which two were lifeboats, and she had also four life-buoys, and as the boats are admitted by the learned counsel for the Board of Trade to have been of the required dimensions, she has so far complied with the provisions of the 292nd section. We are also told that the boats were kept on chocks forward covered up, but with the tackles rove, though of course not hooked on. We are told that the boats had been painted on the previous voyage and then covered up, and that they had not since been looked at, and that when they came to uncover the port lifeboat, it was found that she had not her proper complement of oars, and accordingly two, if not three, oars were taken out of the starboard lifeboat, and handed to the men who were in the boat. The boat had also no tiller, or at any rate none could be found, and she had to leave without one, the second officer steering the boat by holding on to the top of the rudder. Now the assessors are of opinion that there was some neglect here; they think that the boats, and especially the lifeboats, should always be kept tit and ready for use, with a proper complement of oars, and everything necessary on board; and we cannot acquit the master of blame for not having seen that the boats were properly equipped and ready for use, which they certainly were not.
The second question which we are asked is, "Whether " at the time of the casualty Hood was suffering from " any infirmity which would render him unfit to go " aloft; and if so, whether the master was justified in " permitting him to undertake this duty?" It seems that Hood was one of the smartest lads in the ship, and was a general favourite with all on board, and Mr. Wattling, one of the apprentices, told us that, although slightly ruptured, he was not so much so as to unfit him to go aloft. Now we are disposed to place a good deal of reliance upon Mr. Wattling's evidence, for he was a very intelligent witness, and seems to have been much attached to Hood, and if the lad had had any infirmity, which would have been likely to interfere with the performance of his duties, Wattling would have been pretty sure to have known of it. Under all the circumstances, we have no reason to think that the master was not justified in permitting him to go aloft.
The third question which we are asked is, "What " was the cause of Hood falling overboard on the 16th " of July last, and whether prompt measures were " then taken by the master with a view to save his " life?" it seems that Hood was trying to pass outside a man to get to the post of honour, the extremity of the yard, and that whilst doing so the vessel gave a sudden lurch, which caused the poor boy to lose his hold, and he fell overboard. There was of course a shout raised by the men, who were aloft, and the master hearing it, at once ran over to the starboard side of the poop, threw the end of a rope to him, which however seems not to have reached the water; the master then rushed to the bridge, and having got a life-buoy, ran aft with it. and threw it over the stern. We do not see that the master could have done anything else at the moment to save the boy's life.
The fourth question which we are asked is, "Whether " wearing the vessel under the circumstances was a " proper manœuvre?" When the master saw that Hood had missed the buoy, and that it had fallen short of him, he at once ordered the helm to be put hard-up to bring the vessel on to the starboard tack, and the reason he gives for so doing is that the port lifeboat was the better of the two, being fitted with copper air-tight tanks. But the assessors are of opinion that he did wrong to put his helm up and wear the vessel, for by so doing he would necessarily fall a long way to leeward of the boy. What, they think, he ought to have done was to have put his helm hard-down, and thrown his vessel up into the wind, and thus kept her as nearly as possible on the same spot. The assessors think that to wear the ship was not the proper mauœuvre under the circumstances.
The fifth question which we are asked is, "Was " the lifeboat lowered with reasonable speed; and " having regard to the time which had elapsed since " Hood had fallen overboard, and to the state " of the weather and sea, was the master justified " in permitting the boat to leave the ship?" It is, of course, impossible on such an occasion to estimate with any great accuracy the length of time that elapsed from the boy falling overboard, but most of the witnesses state that it was not more than about twenty minutes afterwards before the lifeboat was launched; and if so, the assessors think that that was not an unreasonable time to wear the ship, bring her to, and to get the lifeboat out. But was there any chance that by that time Hood would be still afloat? When the master first saw the boy, he was passing the vessel's quarter; and as the vessel was then going at the rate of 10 knots an hour, or about 300 yards a minute, before the master could have run forward to the bridge, cut or torn off one of the buoys, carried it aft, and thrown it overboard. Hood must have been a long distance astern; so that it would be quite impossible for him, even though a good strong swimmer, to have reached the buoy. The captain said that it fell within 20 or 30 feet of him, but that in our opinion is utterly impossible; it is much more likely that he would be at least a quarter of a mile astern, if not more, when the buoy was thrown to him. Now, in such weather, and with such a sea on, what chance was there that he would be able to reach the buoy? In our opinion, none whatever. And without a buoy to support him, and with his oilskins, heavy clothes, and boots on, the assessors think that he could not have remained afloat for more than five minutes, the more so as it was the depth of winter, and the water necessarily intensely cold being, as they were, near the limit of the icebergs. We are also confirmed in this opinion by the evidence of some of the witnesses, who told us that at first they saw. the gulls hovering over him, but that after a time they saw them leave him and follow the ship, and after that they saw no more of the lad, and they thought that he must have sunk No doubt it was a very natural impulse on the part of Captain Peters to at once order the boat to be got out to pick up the lad, but looking at the length of time that must have elapsed before it was got out, and to the other attendant circumstances, we think that he was not justified in permitting it to leave the ship.
The sixth question which we are asked is, "Was " the lifeboat properly manned, and was the master " justified in ordering Robert Murray to join the boat " or in permitting him to do so." By the master's own admission the lifeboat was not properly manned, for he wanted two extra hands to go in her, and called, as he said, for two heavy men. Now that the master was superintending the launching of the boat is clear from what we are told, that he refused to allow some three or four of them to get into her on the ground that they were not sufficiently strong, and if so he had no right to allow the boat to be put over the side, until she was properly manned, knowing, as he must have done, that it would be difficult, it not impossible, in the then state of the wind and sea for her to lie along. side; and that, if any additional hands had to be put into her, after she was in the water, they would have to jump into the sea, as the poor lad Robert Murray did. We think therefore that the master was responsible for having allowed the boat to be lowered with an insufficient number of hands in her. But in addition to this the boat had no tiller, and although it is all very well for Captain Peters to say that he has managed a boat in a heavy sea without a tiller; the merest landsman knows that without a tiller a rudder would be almost useless in a heavy sea. If indeed they had had a spare oar to steer with, it would have been something, but they do not seem to have had that, for all the witnesses say that, when the boat left the ship, the second officer had his hand on the top of the rudder, and was steering her in that way; and there is only one witness, the cook, who says that he saw an oar put out astern, but that was when the boat was at a very considerable distance off, as much I think he said as half a mile away, and whether that was one of the oars with which they had been pulling, or a spare oar which was in the boat, there is nothing to shew. In our opinion the lifeboat, when she left, was neither properly manned nor properly equipped to be sent away in such weather.
And now as regards the lad Robert Murray; there is some dispute as to whether he was ordered by the captain, or whether he volunteered to go in the boat; I think however, that there is nothing to shew that the master ever ordered him to go; but that after all, in our opinion, makes no difference whatever. Mr. Lyttelton has truly said that forlorn hopes are not often strewn with the bodies of veterans; and that young men full of generous impulses are only too ready to throw themselves into positions of danger and difficulty, from which it is the duty of older and more experienced heads to warn them. This young man, who was only 17 years of age, was evidently an active, intelligent, and courageous lad, just the kind of boy who should have been restrained rather than encouraged to rush into danger. As an apprentice too, he was specially under the master's charge, and it was an improper act on the part of Captain Peters to encourage or even to permit him to jump from the ship into the sea. with the weather in the state in which it was, and in the depth of winter. It would have been improper to allow anyone to jump into the sea under these circumstances, but to encourage or even to permit a young lad like Robert Murray to do so was a thoughtless and cruel act.
The seventh question which we are asked is, "Whether " every possible effort was subsequently made by the " master to endeavour to pick up the boat?" There seems to be no doubt that the master did everything to the best of his judgment to pick up the boat; lie continued to fire off guns until he had fired away nearly all his powder, and when darkness set in he burnt blue lights, and fired off rockets, and afterwards, on the wind shifting, he manœuvred the ship with a view to keep her to leeward of where he thought the boat would be. The assessors, however, are inclined to think that it was not wise to keep the vessel, as he did, on the same tack for some five hours, drifting all the time to leeward, and thus increasing his distance from the boat; they think that it would have been better to have stood backwards and forwards, now on one tack and now on another, so as to keep the vessel as nearly as possible on the same spot. But however this may be, they are clearly of opinion that he was not justified in allowing the boat, manned and equipped as she was, to remain away from the ship for an hour to an hour and a half, and that he ought long before that to have recalled her, knowing, as he should have done, that any further attempt to save the boy Hood would be useless, and that by keeping the boat out any longer he was unnecessarily exposing the lives of all who were in her.
The eighth and ninth questions are as follow:—" Whether in all the circumstances the master acted " to the best of his judgment, and in a proper and sea- " manlike manner, and with due regard to the safety of " the lives of those committed to his care?" and (9) " Whether the master is in default?" and it is added that "the Board of Trade are of opinion that the certifi- " cate of the master should be dealt with." Mr. Lyttelton has said very truly that the master, when Hood fell overboard, was placed in a position of very great difficulty; and no doubt that would be so, and the first and most natural impulse would be to order the boat out to save the life of the poor lad. It must also not be forgotten that all the witnesses except one, and he was but a poor creature, whilst admitting that it was extremely risky, stated that they were quite willing to go in the boat, Hood being a great favourite with all on board. We are therefore quite prepared to believe that the master acted according to the best of his judgment; but we are not prepared to say that he acted in a proper and seamanlike manner, and with a due regard to the lives of those committed to his care. We think that he was to blame for sending the boat away at all, when there was no reasonable prospect of saving Hood's life, more especially in the state in which she was, insufficiently and improperly manned and equipped. But in encouraging or even in permitting Robert Murray to jump overboard to swim to the boat in such weather and in such a climate, the master acted not only improperly but cruelly. At the same time the assessors are willing to give him credit for acting from the most praiseworthy motives, and they are very unwilling to do anything which would seem to discourage sailors from running some risk to save the life of a comrade who may have fallen overboard. Captain Peters, it seems, has been for 10 years in the same employ, and for 9 years of that time in the same ship; he has been 7 years a master, and for the last 20 months has commanded the "Earl of Jersey." Some years ago, whilst serving as second mate on board a vessel called the "Strathmae," she was wrecked on a desert island, and the captain, chief officer, and 38 of the passengers were drowned; upon which he assumed the command, and succeeded in landing the survivors, and in providing for their safety during the 7 months that they remained on the island; and for his conduct on that occasion he received the good conduct medal from the Board of Trade. He is therefore, no doubt, a good smart officer, but perhaps a little too reckless of his own as well as of other peoples lives. Whilst then we think that the master acted very improperly in risking the lives of the boat's crew, and more especially in regard to the lad Robert Murray, we are disposed to regard his conduct as due, not to wilful neglect or default, but to an error of judgment, for which it is never the practice of this Court to deal with an officer's certificate.
(Signed)
H. C. ROTHERY,
Wreck Commissioner.
We concur.
(Signed)
R. METHVEN,
ALFRED PARISH,
Assessors.
RICHD. C. DYER,
50022—137. 180.—4/87. Wt. 12. E. & S.
|
