Wreck Report for 'British Princess', 1888

(No. 11.)

"BRITISH PRINCESS."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of an investigation held before W. H. NEATE, Esquire, a person appointed by the Board of Trade to inquire into and report upon the circumstances attending the loss of the British barque "BRITISH PRINCESS."

SIR,

 

Board of Trade Offices,

Cardiff, 9th May 1888.

In accordance with your instructions contained in minute of the 23rd ult., wherein you appoint me inspector to inquire into the circumstances attending the loss of the barque "British Princess," I beg to report that the inquiry took place on the 28th and 30th ult. Mr. Waldron appeared for the Board of Trade.

The following is a summary of the evidence:-The "British Princess" was a British sailing ship, built of wood at St. John, N.B., in the year 1864. Her length was 199.75 feet, her breadth 38.8 feet, and her depth 23.95 feet.

She was rigged as a barque, and was registered at the port of Port Glasgow, her official number being 50,474, and her tonnage, after deducting 30.79 tons for crew space, was 1346.07 tons.

She was owned by Messrs. James McFadzean, of Seymour Villa, Ayr, her master, and William Clark, the former being the manager of the vessel.

Mr. Robert Hunter, former owner, stated that he purchased the vessel in 1880 from Messrs. Hughes, of Menai Bridge, for the sum of 3,250l. She was then at St. Nazaire, from whence she proceeded to Quebec and then to Liverpool, where she was stripped, caulked, remetalled, and put into thorough repair by Messrs. Black & Vandall, at a cost of about 700l. The vessel traded until the beginning of 1884, when she was again put into dry dock at Greenock, and stripped, caulked, remetalled, and put in thoroughly good order by Messrs. Scott & Co., at a cost of 900l., after which she sailed to Cardiff, Rio Janeiro, and Quebec, returning to the Clyde later in the same year. Five hundred tons of coals were then put on board, preparatory to starting on another voyage, but remunerative employment not offering, the vessel was laid up in the Garelock, River Clyde, where she remained till the end of January last.

Mr. Hunter stated that he sold the vessel, with the coals in her, on the 12th January for 1,638l., to Mr. James McFadzean, master mariner, of Seymour Villa, Ayr, who thereupon took the command and management of the vessel. Mr. Hunter stated that he held a mortgage over the whole ship for the final instalment of purchase money, and subject to this mortgage Mr. McFadzean sold 32/64 shares in the vessel to Mr. Wm. Clark, of Seymour Villa, Ayr.

John McNeill, ship's carpenter at Port Glasgow, stated that the vessel was moved, in June 1886, from the Albert Harbour, Greenock, to the Garelock, where she was laid up for about 20 months. Mr. McNeill was in charge of the vessel after she had been moored until February 1888; and he stated that for the first seven months he lived on board her. For the following four months he lived on board the "True Briton," another vessel belonging to the same owners, after which he returned to the "British Princess," and remained on board for the further period of nine months she was in the Garelock. During the time he was on board he caulked and payed decks and topsides, and otherwise looked after her.

Mr. McNeill stated that the vessel was in good condition as regards hull, spars, and rigging, and she made about one inch of water per month. In midsummer, 1887, a vessel called the "Jane Law" broke from her moorings and drove against the "British Princess," causing damage to the starboard bow, carrying away part of the quick-work, covering-board and deck, but this damage was subsequently repaired by two shipwrights who came over from Greenock. No other substantial work was done or needed during the time the vessel was in the Gareloch, and in February 1888 she was towed out of the harbour and he left her.

Mr. Hunter stated that after he had sold the ship in January last she was towed from the Gareloch to Cardiff, where the coals in her were discharged and sold. She was then placed in dry dock and put in good order, and classed A 1 1/2 for four years, American Record.

Mr. Hunter stated that the vessel carried three or four boats, which he believes were in good condition, and he thinks the disc was placed at 5 feet 4 inches below the deck. She was insured for 800l. against total loss, but he cannot say what insurances were effected on the cargo and freight advanced.

Mr. William Clarke, part-owner of the vessel, stated that the vessel cost 1,460l., and with other expenses-200l. attending the transfer-amounted to 1,660l. The expense of overhaul and re-classing at Cardiff was 105l. Mr. Clarke stated that he considered the vessel worth 2,000l. She was to have been insured for 1,400l., but the master only insured her for 800l., as he was influenced by the fact that he was to command her himself. She carried three pumps, four boats, and two compasses, and when she last left Cardiff she had on board a crew of 23 hands. Captain McFadzean had had 20 years' experience in all kinds of sailing vessels without meeting with any casualty.

Mr. James Galloway, late mate of the vessel, stated that he had had fifty years' experience at sea; he joined her on the 16th January last, and remained by her till the 22nd February. He was in the vessel when she towed from Greenock to Cardiff, and she made no water on the passage, although she put into an Irish port through stress of water. At Cardiff the coals (500 tons) were discharged and the vessel was put into dry dock; her copper was overhauled and patched, and she was recaulked from the gunwale to copper edge. The forefoot of the false keel was repaired and recoppered, and on coming out of dry dock the topside caulking was done.

Mr. Galloway stated that so far as he knew the vessel was perfectly seaworthy and well supplied with boats (of which there were three, each capable of carrying 15 or 16 men) and pumps. There were 3 pumps, 2 fly-wheel and 1 windmill He and the master disagreed about a private matter not connected with the ship, and he left on the 22nd February. At this time the vessel had 200 tons coal in her for stiffening, and was waiting for the remainder of cargo which was not ready.

Mr. James Honeywood Roberts, shipbuilder, Cardiff, stated that he repaired the vessel in the Commercial dry dock. He received instructions from the master to take off the coppering where required by the surveyor. The copper was renewed after the caulking had been tested, and after leaving the dry dock the topsides and waterways were caulked and one new spar supplied and some stores. The cost of this was 120l., and Mr. Roberts stated that to the best of his belief the vessel was seaworthy and well-found in every respect, in fact, he considered the purchasers had a bargain.

Mr. Thomas G. George, marine surveyor, of Cardiff, stated that he surveyed the vessel for classification in American Record; his survey extended over 14 days. The copper was taken off in several places and the caulking tried; it was sound and the copper was renewed. Above the water line was an outer covering of planking, and several pieces were taken out and the caulking underneath inspected and found sound. The outer plank taken off was replaced by new, and the vessel was caulked all over above the metal; several wood and iron fastenings above and below the waterline were taken out, tested, and renewed by new. All the frames at the openings were tested, beams bored and found sound. The vessel made very little water when loaded in dock, and the day before she sailed he tried the pumps and found them in good condition. The vessel was well equipped; she had spare spears for the pumps, was perfectly seaworthy, and had a good side, but he did not notice the position of the disc. The 4 loading ports in bows would be caulked at same time. Mr. T. G. George, jr., stated he tested the caulking when vessel was in dry dock and found same satisfactory; she appeared to him to be a good ship.

Mr. Charles Massey, the representative of Messrs. Cory Bros., Cardiff, stated his firm shipped on board the vessel 1,826 tons steam coal, and 9 tons 8 cwt. of forge coal, besides which she had 15 tons of coal on board for ship's use. There was also on board a steel launch with engines complete weighing about 7 tons, and this was lashed and secured amidships. The boiler for the launch and some other goods, weighing altogether 9 1/4 tons, was stowed below deck, making the total weight below deck 1,829 tons 13 cwt., and 7 tons above deck.

Mr. John Davies stated he is superintendent to Messrs. Cory Bros., the shippers of the cargo. The vessel had one deck with 3 hatchways and one hold. She was filled with coal amidships, a space being left for a boiler which was afterwards put in. A space for about 40 tons was left forward, and for about 80 tons aft, the coal being sloped off at each end. The total weight of the coal was 1,835 tons. He stated her disc was wholly out of water, in fact, the bottom of it was 2 or 3 inches clear in fresh water; he did not consider her overladen. The vessel had been laid up for some time, and appeared to be in a dilapidated state requiring paint. He had had experience at sea.

Mr. Thomas Davies, trimmer, corroborated the evidence of Mr. John Davies, and stated that no shifting boards were used in stowing the cargo. He did not think the vessel overladen, and she appeared to be in a seaworthy condition; he neither saw any water in her or indications of decay.

Mr. George Elliott, Cardiff pilot, stated he took the vessel out of dock on the 10th March, and brought up in a safe anchorage outside Cardiff Sands, Penarth Roads. He was on board 13 hours, during which time she was not pumped, nor was the windmill pump going. There was no difficulty with the crew at this time, and the vessel appeared to him to be perfectly seaworthy but dirty. He saw her afterwards, about the 14th March, when she had drifted 1/2 mile towards the Monkstone, but did not go on board. Some of the crew were on ??eck, but no one spoke to him except the captain. He ??hen noticed she was in good trim.

Mr. W. Turner, Superintendent of Mercantile Marine at Cardiff, produced a letter received after the vessel sailed, and he stated that articles were opened at Cardiff on the 5th March, the crew being 22 hands all told, and she sailed for Rio Janeiro on the 10th March. When about to proceed to sea nine of the crew failed to join, and substitutes were engaged at the pier head. Two more subsequently deserted whilst the vessel was in the Roads. Every effort has been made to obtain evidence from some of these men but without success, as they could not be found at the addresses given.

The letter produced was to the effect "That on the " 11th March, the wind being heavy, the vessel thumped " heavily on the ground and made plenty of water. " The crew went aft and asked the master to have the " vessel overhauled before she went to sea. Two large " pieces of wood came up from her bottom which " appeared to be part of her keel; one of the men showed " it to the mate. The carpenter sounded the pumps " and told the crew she was making six inches of water " per hour. The following morning it calmed, and the " crew appear to have desired to go ashore, but the " captain refused to allow them to do so. They then " refused to do anything towards getting vessel " ready for sea, but were engaged from the 11th to the " 19th pumping her out occasionally. One of the crew " then refusing to go to sea until the vessel was over- " hauled, the master slipped the chain, let the anchor " go, and took the crew to sea against their will."

Previous to sailing from the docks the vessel was casually seen by the Board's surveyors, but as she was not under survey, and there was nothing in her appearance to call for any action on the part of the surveyors, they did not go on board her.

William Smith, A.B., stated that he was an able seaman, and joined the vessel on the 10th March, as she was leaving the dock for the Roads. The vessel anchored at 2 p.m. the same day. He corroborated all the evidence contained in the letter of complaint referred to, which he sent on shore by the pilot, and he stated the vessel was in bad condition aloft, her decks were bad, and she made a great deal of water. She had 3 boats aft resting on the forward part of the poop on skids, keel down, but there were no davits, and no tackle rigged for lowering them. A pilot came off on the 19th March, and Davis and 5 of the crew complained to him about the condition of the ship, but the pilot said he could not help it. Sail was then made, and vessel proceeded on her voyage.

Peter Evans, pilot, Cardiff, stated that about 9 a.m. of the 26th March he went down Channel seeking, the wind then blowing a moderate breeze from the N.E., with a rough sea. Upon arriving off Sully Island he saw the "British Princess" flying her jack for a pilot, and he boarded her about 10 a.m. The vessel was athwart the tide about 5 miles off Sully, and she drifted with it until 1 p.m., when she appeared to be drifting on to Breaksea Lightship, and the master ordered the chain to be slipped, and the light-vessel was passed; the lower topsails and jib were set, and she was kept under these sails until Nash Point was passed about 3 p.m., when the pilot left her. Whilst he was on board 6 of the crew came to him and complained that the vessel was unseaworthy, stating that she was deficient in ropes, leaky, and generally unsafe. He referred them to the captain, who subsequently told him that the six men had refused all duty, except pumping the ship, all the time the vessel was in Penarth Roads.

The master also told him that the vessel made a little water, but the windmill pump would suck her dry in 8 minutes, and the main pumps in 4 minutes; there was plenty of rope on board, but the men refused to do anything but pump the ship. The vessel did not appear to him to be overladen, and though dirty he thought she was seaworthy, and all the topsails which had been set were new. Fourteen of the crew, exclusive of the 6 men previously mentioned, were hard at work all the time he was on board, during which time he saw no pumping. Several letters were given him to post, which he did upon his return.

William Smith, A.B., stated that after leaving Cardiff Roads the vessel experienced bad weather, and the water gained, necessitating a spell of 10 minutes each watch whilst the vessel was at sea, until the 28th March. One of the main pumps had become choked two days before, and at 6 p.m. the other main pump and windmill pump became choked, the vessel having 6 feet of water in her hold. She was kept hove-to, first on one tack and then on the other, until 7.30 a.m., 29th, when the master decided to run the ship on shore. Smith stated he went aloft for the purpose of getting a tackle ready for lowering a boat, but the master squared the yards and rendered the tackle useless. The mate wished the master to run her ashore at a spot where it would be easy for the crew to land, but the master ran the ship for the Minho Bar, where she struck.

Smith stated that there was a heavy sea on the Bar, and 10 or 15 minutes after striking the vessel broke up. No attempt was made to lower the boats, and he succeeded in getting ashore by the the aid of a cork lifejacket and a piece of wood, but the remainder of the crew were all drowned. After landing he was taken to Vigo, and was subsequently sent on to London, where he arrived on the 12th April.

It appears that there was an allegation that the Spanish authorities had, by firing upon Portuguese fishermen, interfered with the rescue of the crew at Caminha. This allegation having been enquired into by her Britannic Majesty's Vice-Consul at Oporto, he found that no shots were fired until some time after the only survivor had left the vessel, and the shots then fired were for the sole purpose of preventing wreckage being stolen from the vessel.

The principal points in this case submitted by Mr. Waldron were as follows:-

1. Whether the vessel was in good and seaworthy condition, as regards hull and equipments, when she last left Cardiff?

2. What number of boats had the vessel on board, and were they sufficient for the crew?

3. Where and how were they stowed or carried, and what means were available for lowering them in case of necessity?

4. Whether her pumps were sufficient and in good order?

5. What were the circumstances in which the vessel remained in Cardiff Roads from the 10th to 19th March, and whether she sustained any damage during that time?

6. How was it that so many men of those shipped as crew either failed to join or deserted before the vessel left Cardiff?

7. What was the cause of the vessel making so much water after she left Cardiff, and whether every possible effort was made to ascertain the whereabouts of the leak and to keep the water under?

8. Whether the vessel was navigated with proper and seamanlike care?

9. What was the cause of the vessel stranding on the Minho Bar on or about the 29th March, and how was it that so many lives were lost?

Before answering the foregoing questions a slight review of some of the evidence is necessary.

Other than one or two witnesses stating that the vessel appeared dilapidated and dirty, there was no evidence adduced before the Court, with the exception of the sole survivor, Smith, to show that the vessel was in any way unseaworthy in hull or equipments, and it is a noteworthy fact that Smith, whose experience at sea is not very great, appears to have been at the bottom of all trouble with the crew whilst the vessel was laying in Penarth Roads, he being the writer of the letter relative to the "bumping whilst at anchor," which reached the Superintendent Mercantile Marine, Cardiff. Smith is consequently the only authority as to the extent of water made at that time. Smith was also one who, with 5 others, complained to the pilot as to her state, and his is the only evidence as to quantity of water made on the voyage and up to the time of vessel running ashore, previous to which, he stated, she had not been pumped for 14 hours.

It is difficult to accept as a fact that the crew were, as a body, dissatisfied with the ship. Had such been the case, the master would have been powerless to take the vessel to sea. Nor can all that has been said as to the leaky condition of vessel be reconciled, as in addition to the lack of evidence to prove the condition of vessel was bad, there is none by the survivor Smith to show that endeavours were made by anyone to discover the whereabouts of the leak, or to prepare the boats for an emergency-common prudence would have dictated such action.

The pilot clears up the matter of slipping anchor. This was undoubtedly done to prevent drifting on to the Breaksea Light-vessel. His evidence shows that whilst he was on board there was no pumping done; but the master informed him she would suck in 4 minutes with main pumps.

It is not clearly ascertained by the evidence forthcoming that the vessel went ashore on Minho Bar. There is a small rock about 5 cables lengths from headland, which, on reference to chart, may be considered to be the exact spot. Minho Bar has only seven feet of water low tide, and thirteen high water.

As regards Smith's evidence, there are one or two points which attention is specially directed. Although in his depositions he deposed to getting on shore on a piece of wood, it transpired that he, in addition, was provided with a cork jacket, and it was not until the Consul's letter was read that he acknowledged it. Smith was unable to give the name of the spot where he was landed or where the vessel went ashore. He merely produced a slip of paper with the name of the place he was taken to written in Spanish.

His statement that had the mate's advice been taken by the master the vessel would not have been lost is very bare, as he cannot state what the mate's advice was, but it seems probable that the master could have taken the vessel to Vigo, as the wind was favourable on the previous day (28th).

1. The vessel was seaworthy on leaving Cardiff Docks for Penarth Roads, but whether she sustained damage whilst at anchorage the evidence is insufficient to determine.

2. The vessel was provided with three boats, one of which was a lifeboat, and they were sufficient for the crew.

3. The boats were stowed on skids fore-end of the poop, and the method for lowering same was yard-and-stay purchases.

4. There were 3 pumps in all, and they were sufficient and in good order.

5. The vessel was laying windbound from the 10th to the 19th March, during which time some of the crew refused duty; the evidence is not sufficient to determine whether she sustained damage or not.

6. Eight of the original crew never joined the vessel for reasons unknown, 2 others deserted whilst she lay in the Roads because they did not like her appearance.

7. The cause of the vessel making so much water is a matter of doubt; she may have struck the bottom at anchorage, and done some damage below water which afterwards matured, but no attempt appears to have been made as to finding the leak. Pumping was resorted to to keep the water under.

8. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I cannot say the vessel was not navigated with proper and seamanlike care, unless it is a fact that no effort was made to find and stop the leak or get the boats ready. The master was also owner, and had borne a good character previously.

9. The vessel was run ashore with a view to saving life, but whether it was on Minho Bar, or a rock about five cables length N.W. of Minho Bar, there is not sufficient evidence to determine. Owing to the heavy sea running the boats were useless, even had there been any proper effort to get them out.

I have the honor to be, Sir,

Your obedient servant,

W. H. NEATE,

Principal Officer,

South Wales District.

The Assistant Secretary,

Marine Department,

Board of Trade, London.

54010-13. 180.-5/88. Wt. 23. E. & S.