Wreck Report for 'Betsy' and 'Samuel Laing', 1887

(No. 3274.)

"BETSY" AND "SAMUEL LAING" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at the Sessions House, Westminster, on the 2nd and 3rd of June 1887, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain PARISH, Rear-Admiral MORESBY, and Captain DAVIES, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the damage sustained by the sailing Barge "BETSY," and the loss of the life of one of her crew, through collision with the Steamship "SAMUEL LAING" in the River Thames on the 24th of April 1887.

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, partly to the "Betsy" not having had any riding light exhibited, and partly to the want of a good lookout on board the "Samuel Laing" at the time. Under the circumstances, however, the Court will not deal with the certificate of the master of the "Samuel Laing."

Dated this 3rd day of June 1887.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

ALFRED PARISH,

 

 

 

J. MORESBY,

Assessors.

 

 

J. DAVIES,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 2nd and 3rd of June 1887, when Mr. Marsden appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Pyke for the owners, master, and pilot of the "Samuel Laing," and Mr. Greening for the owner and for the widow and children of the master of the "Betsy." Ten witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Marsden handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Three witnesses were then produced on behalf of the "Samuel Laing," and Mr. Greening and Mr. Pyke having addressed the Court on behalf of their respective parties, and Mr. Marsden having been heard for the Board of Trade, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions on which its opinion had been asked.

The facts of the case, so far as the "Betsy" is concerned, are extremely simple. She is a sprit sail barge, belonging to the Port of Rochester, of 37 tons register, built at Frindsbury, in the county of Kent, in the year 1845, and, at the time of the casualty which forms the subject of the present inquiry, she was the property of Mr. John Seymour, of Chatham, in the county of Kent, barge owner, who was also the managing owner. She left Vauxhall between 2 and 3 p.m. of the 23rd of April last, bound to Rainham, in Kent, having on board a cargo of manure, and a crew consisting of a master and his two sons, lads of the ages of between 14 and 15 and between 12 and 13 respectively; and at about 9 p.m., on the flood beginning to make, she was brought up a little above Cold Harbour Point, and as close to the north shore as she could get. Having taken in the sails, and hoisted an anchor light on the foresail halyards, they all turned in, and, so far as appears, remained below until between 2 and 3 the next morning, when the two boys, hearing a noise on deck, ran up and found that a steam vessel, which afterwards proved to be the "Samuel Laing," had run into them, carrying away the mast and all the rigging, and that their father was nowhere to be seen, having probably been knocked overboard, either by the tiller or by the falling mast or rigging. In the meantime the steamer, which was bound down the river, was brought up, and having sent her boat she took off the two boys, and subsequently landed them at Erith Pier, but the master was not again seen.

The case of the "Samuel Laing" is as follows. She is an iron screw steam ship, belonging to the Port of London, of 624 tons gross, and 394 tons net register, and is fitted with engines of 70 horse-power. She was built at Jarrow, in the county of Durham, in the year 1854, and, at the time of the casualty, was the property of Mr. John Fenwick, the younger, of 44, Coal Exchange, London, shipowner, and others, Mr. Fenwick being the managing owner. She left Deptford Creek at about 12.30 a.m. of the 24th of April last in ballast, with a crew of 15 hands, and in charge of a duly licensed river pilot, bound to Sunderland; and at about 1 a.m. got fairly away, and proceeded down the river with her engines going at half speed, and sometimes less. the master and pilot being on the bridge, the chief officer forward on the look-out, and the boatswain and an A.B. at the midship wheel. After passing Barking Creek the master went to his cabin to write some telegrams, leaving the pilot alone on the bridge; and shortly afterwards the chief officer, having placed a seaman, named William Young, on the look-out, went aft to the cabin for the purpose of giving his time sheet to the master. The vessel continued her course down the river, the engines, we are told, still going at half speed, and the vessel making about 6 knots, the night being dark with rain, and the wind blowing a fresh breeze from about S.W. to W.S.W. On entering Erith Reach, and whilst the master and chief officer were still in the cabin aft, two bright lights were observed nearly ahead, upon which the pilot ordered the helm to be slightly starboarded, so as to bring them a little on the starboard bow; and the vessel continued her course until she had got to within a short distance of the lights, when it was seen that they were the riding lights of two barges lying a little above Cold Harbour Point, upon which orders were given to port the helm, the pilot intending to pass under their sterns; but before the order could be carried out, the look-out man forward reported a barge right ahead without lights, and called out to starboard and hard-a-starboard. The pilot immediately repeated the order to starboard and hard-a-starboard, and at the same time telegraphed to the engine room to stop and reverse full speed; but before these orders could be carried into effect, the "Samuel Laing" with her starboard cathead caught the barge's rigging on the starboard, and took the mast and all the rigging out of her. Having brought the vessel round with her head up the river, the boat was sent off, and brought away the two boys; and subsequently the barge herself was towed over to the south shore, and having been anchored, the whole of the gear, which was still hanging to the steamer's starboard cathead, was put on board her, and a man was left in charge.

These being the facts of the case, the first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Whether " the 'Betsy' was brought up in such a position as to " comply with Articles 10 and 12 of the Thames Bye- " Laws, dated the 5th of February 1872?" The articles in question will be found at pages 7 and 8 of the printed copy of the "Rules and Bye-Laws for the " Regulation of the Navigation of the River Thames;" and the object of these articles is to prevent vessels being anchored between the tiers or in the water-way, or ii such a manner as to obstruct the free navigation of the river. But where the "Betsy" was anchored appears to have been a very suitable place, being under the shelter of Cold Harbour Point, and as near to the north shore as she could get. It is a place, we are told, where barges are frequently in the habit of bringing up; and on the night in question there were, besides the "Betsy," two barges anchored there, namely, the "Godwit" and the "Garibaldi," whose riding lights had been seen by the "Samuel Laing," as also a dumb barge, which had got under way and proceeded down the river before the collision occurred.

The second question which we are asked is, "Whether " her riding light was exhibited on the night of the " 23rd-24th April, as required by Article 7 of the " Thames Bye-Laws, dated 18th March 1880; and if " so, whether such light was burning at the time of " the collision?" The article in question will be found at page 59 of the Rules and Bye-Laws referred to, and requires that every vessel, when at anchor in the river, shall carry a white light where it can be best seen, and at a height not exceeding 20 feet above the hull. Now I think that there can be no doubt, on the evidence before us, that the "Betsy's" riding light was hung up on the foresail halyards, some 10 or 12 feet above the deck, which would be a proper place for it, at about 9 p.m. of the 23rd, before the master and his two sons went below, and that it was burning brightly at 10 minutes to 2, when Hutchinson, the waterman in the employ of the Thames Conservancy, last saw it; and it was said that under these circumstances the presumption would be that it would be alight at the time of the collision, which occurred about an hour afterwards, for that it is the practice on board these barges to put up their riding lights when they come to anchor, and then to go below until the tide turns and it is time for them to get under way again, and that for their own safety they take care that the lights shall not require to be retrimmed whilst they are below, and that as a rule they do not do so. On the other hand, we have the evidence of the pilot of the "Samuel Laing," who was on the bridge, of the boatswain, who was at the wheel, and of the look-out man forward, that they saw no light on board the "Betsy," and that, as they had been steering by the lights of the "Godwit" and "Garibaldi" in going down Erith Reach, and the "Betsy" was nearly in a line with them, they must have seen her light, if she had had one. A portion also of what was said to be the "Betsy's" foresail halyard, with a lanyard attached to it, was produced, to show that the riding light had not been taken down at the time of the collision; but admitting this to be so, it does not show that the light was burning at that time. Reference also was made to some admissions, which it was said the little boys had made, when they were brought on board the steamer; it was stated that on being asked why they had not had any light up, they had said that it had gone out, and that their father was trimming it when the steamer came down upon them. But apart from the question whether any statement from the boys would be properly admissible, I am clearly of opinion that this case can not be decided on some chance remark which may have been made by the boys at a time when they had just lost their father, and when they would naturally be in a state of the greatest terror and distress. Mr. Pyke indeed stated that he did not rely on these conversations to prove what the boys had said, but merely to show that the "Samuel Laing's" people had always maintained that the barge had had no light exhibited, and so far we are quite ready to admit it. Looking, then, at all these facts, that there is no one who can speak to having seen the light burning after 10 minutes to 2, when Hutchinson last saw it, that the crew of the "Samuel Laing" state positively that they saw no light on board the "Betsy," and that it is reasonable to suppose that, if she had had one, they must have seen it, the only conclusion to which we can come is that from some cause or other the light had gone out before the collision, and that at the moment of the collision she had no riding light attached.

The third question which we are asked is, "Whether " an anchor watch should have been kept on board the " 'Betsy'?" From the evidence before us it appears never to be the practice on board these barges to have an anchor watch, and indeed the learned Counsel for the Board of Trade has said that he does not suggest that she should have had one.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "Whether " the master of the 'Samuel Laing' was justified in " not remaining on the bridge during the night of " the 23rd-24th April as required by Article 36 of " the Thames Bye-Laws of the 5th February 1872?" The article in question is to be found at page 15 of the Rules and Bye-Laws already referred to, and is in these words: "The master of every steam-vessel navigating " the river shall be and remain on one of the paddle " boxes, or on the bridge of such steam vessel, and " shall cause a proper look-out to be kept from the said " steam vessel during the whole of the time it is under " way, and shall remove or cause to be removed any " person other than the crew, who shall be on the " bridge or paddle boxes of such steamer." It was said that the concluding words of the article shewed that it referred to passenger vessels only, and not to a cargo vessel like the "Samuel Laing;" but I am disposed to think that this is not so. At the same time it appears to me that the article must be read in connection with the interpretation clause on page 4, and there a "Master" is defined to be "any person, whether the " owner or not, lawfully or wrongfully, having or " taking the command, charge, or management of the " vessel for the time being." Now, the pilot was on the bridge and in charge of the deck at the time, and would be included under the definition of a person "having the command, charge, or management of the " vessel for the time being;" so far therefore the article seems to have been complied with. And indeed the learned Counsel for the Board of Trade has said that a rule, which would oblige the master to remain on the bridge without leaving it during the whole time that the vessel was in the river, would be a most unreasonable one, seeing that it is well known that the masters of the large steamers frequently join their vessels on the outward voyage, and leave them on the homeward voyage, when they arrive off Gravesend In our opinion the object of the rule is to make it incumbent on the pilot or officer, who is for the time being in charge of the deck, to remain on the bridge, and not to direct the navigation from the main deck or from aft.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Whether " the 'Samuel Laing' was navigated at a proper rate " of speed as required by Article 3; and whether her " speed was reduced upon approaching the 'Betsy' " as required by Article 14 of the Thames Bye-Laws of " the 18th of March 1880?" These articles will be found at pages 57 and 61 of the Rules and Bye-Laws already referred to. The third article says that "Every steam vessel navigating the river shall be " navigated with care and caution, and at a speed and " in a manner which shall not endanger the safety of " other vessels or moorings, or cause damage thereto, " or to the banks of the river." We were told that the vessel began to get under way from Deptford Creek at 12.30 a.m., but that it was not until 1 a.m. that she was fairly straightened down the river, and ready to proceed on her voyage; and that the collision occurred according to the master at about 2.45, and according to the chief engineer, at 2.30 a.m. Now the distance from Deptford Creek to the place of the collision is as nearly as possible 12 miles, so that according to the master she must have been going on an average at the rate of less than 7 miles, and according to the chief engineer eight knots an hour for the whole distance. Now the 15th Article of the Rules and Bye-Laws (p. 61) says that "Steam vessels navigating the river between " Barking Creek and London Bridge, other than river " passenger steamers certified to carry passengers in " smooth water only, shall never exceed a speed of " seven statute miles per hour over the ground whether " with or against the tide." The vessel was therefore entitled to go from Deptford Creek to Barking Creek at the rate of 7 knots, and beyond that place at any speed she pleased, provided that it was not such as to endanger the safety of other vessels or moorings. But a speed of seven or even of eight knots was not such a speed as would be likely to endanger other vessels, and we must therefore hold that she was not going at an improper rate of speed. As soon, too, as the "Betsy" is seen, no time seems to have been lost in ordering the engines to be stopped and reversed full speed in accordance with the provisions of Article 14; but they were then too close to the "Betsy" to make it possible for them to avoid coming into collision with her. On the whole it seems to us that the "Samuel Laing" has not violated the rules referred to.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "Whether " a proper look-out was kept on board the 'Samuel " Laing?'" it has been already stated that soon after passing Barking Creek the captain left the bridge and went below to write some telegrams, which he intended to send on shore at Gravesend by the pilot. He was followed soon afterwards by the chief officer, so that the vessel was then left with the pilot alone on the bridge, the boatswain and an A.B. at the wheel, and the look-out man forward. Now the assessors are clearly of opinion that on a dark night, such as this is described to have been, and with drizzling rain, it was not a proper thing to have left the pilot alone on the bridge, without the master or one of the officers there to assist him in the navigation, and to see that his orders were properly and promptly carried out. It is the pilot's duty to direct the course of the vessel, and it is the duty of the master, officers, and crew to keep a good look-out; and if it was necessary for the master to leave the bridge and go to his cabin, he should have ordered the chief officer to take his place by the side of the pilot to assist him in keeping a look-out, and to see that the pilot's orders were duly carried out. But in the present case not only the master, but the chief officer also were down in the cabin; and the assessors are very clearly of opinion that it was not a proper thing under the circumstances to do. They think that, if one of the officers had been by the side of the pilot with his glasses keeping a look-out, it is quite possible that this barge might have been seen, notwithstanding that she had no light exhibited, in sufficient time to have enabled the "Samuel Laing" to have gone clear of her.

The seventh question which we are asked is, "What " were the circumstances in which the master of the " 'Betsy' was drowned; and whether every possible " effort was made by those on board the 'Samuel Laing' " to save him?" We do not know exactly under what circumstances it was that the master of the "Betsy" was drowned, but he was probably knocked overboard, either by the tiller or by some portion of the wreckage. It is not however pretended that every possible effort was not made by those on board the "Samuel Laing" to go to the assistance of the barge, although as a fact they were ignorant that any one had been knocked overboard from her.

The eighth and ninth questions are as follows:—(8) "Was the casualty caused by the wrongful act and " default of William White, master of the 'Samuel " Laing?'" and (9) "Whether blame attaches to the " pilot?" And it is added that, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, "the certificate of the master of " the 'Samuel Laing' should be dealt with." The casualty seems to have been due partly to the "Betsy" not having had any riding light up, and partly to there not having been a sufficiently good look-out on board the "Samuel Laing," both the master as well as the chief mate being below at the time. No blame in our opinion attaches to the pilot, for the speed of the vessel was not excessive, and the course which he took in going round Cold Harbour Point, and inside the barges the "Godwit" and "Garibaldi," would have been a proper one, if the "Betsy" had not been there. Although, then, the master is in the opinion of the assessors somewhat to blame for having left the bridge without ordering the chief officer to take his place, they think that it is not a case in which we ought to deal with his certificate.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHEEY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

ALFRED PARISH,

 

 

 

J. MORESBY,

Assessors.

 

 

J. DAVIES,

 

50022—16. 180.—6/87. Wt. 12. E. & S.