Portcities Southampton
UK * Bristol * Hartlepool * Liverpool * London * Southampton
You are here: PortCities Southampton > [14290] 'Union' and 'Sherburn', 1878
* Text only * About this site * Site Map * Feedback
Explore this site
Start Here
About Us
Partners And Collections
Get Interactive!
Image galleries
The Docks
River Itchen
Southampton at war
Flying Boats
Finding Out More
Southampton speaks
Street Directories
Historic Buildings Survey
Registers and Records
Lloyd's Register
Official Sources
Other Records
Finding Out More
Wrecks and Accidents
Why accidents happen
Improving Safety at Sea
Finding Out More
Wreck Reports
Life of a Port
How a port comes to life
At work in a port
Ports at play
Trade - lifeblood of a port
Finding Out More
On the Line
Company growth and development
Shipping lines
Transatlantic travel
Preparing a liner
Finding Out More
Sea People
Life at sea
Jobs at sea
Travelling by sea
Starting a new life by sea
Women and the sea
Finding Out More
Diversity of Ships
The variety of ships
What drives the ship?
Ships of ancient times
Ships in the age of sail
Ships of the steam age
Ships of today

Wreck Report for 'Union' and 'Sherburn', 1878

PDF file

This resource is available to view as a PDF document.

Click here to view 'Wreck Report for 'Union' and 'Sherburn', 1878'.

You will need a PDF viewer to view this document. Tell me more...

Unique ID:14290
Description:Board of Trade Wreck Report for 'Union' and 'Sherburn', 1878
Creator:Board of Trade
Copyright:Out of copyright
Partner:SCC Libraries
Partner ID:Unknown


(No. 66.)

Ketch "UNION" and S.S. "SHERBURN."

Report of Court.

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal investigation held at the County Court, Sunderland, 

on the 21st May 1878, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, 

assisted by Rear Admiral POWELL, R.N., and Captain NICOLAS, as Assessors, into 

the circumstances attending the loss of the Ketch " UNION," of Wells, through 

collision with the British Steam Ship "SHERBURN," of Sunderland, near the Mouse 

Light Ship, on the 1st instant, whereby one life was lost.

The Court, having carefully enquired into the circumstances of the 

above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons stated in the annexed 

Judgment, that the collision was due to the wrongful acts and defaults of 

Richard Benson, the master of the said steam ship "Sherburn," in navigating his 

vessel down the West Swin, on a very dark night, at so great a rate of speed 

that, when the "Union" was made out ahead, it was not possible to avoid running 

into her.

The Court, therefore, suspends the certificate of the said Richard Benson for 

three months, but recommends that during the period of such suspension he be 

allowed a first mate's certificate.

The Court makes no order as to costs.

Dated the 21st day of May 1878.

       (Signed)H. C. ROTHERY,

        Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

       (Signed)R. ASHMORE POWELL,Assessors.

       "B. G. W. NICOLAS, 


The Commissioner.—The circumstances of this case are extremely simple; the facts 

are almost undisputed; the witnesses having on the whole given a fair and 

straightforward account of the transactions; and the only question which we have 

to consider is, whether the conduct of the master of the "Sherburn" was such as 

to deserve either censure or punishment from the Court.

The "Union" was a ketch of 46 tons, built in 1833 at Sutton, in the county of 

York, and belonged to two persons residing at Blakeney, in Norfolk. She left 

London on the 29th of April last, with a cargo of 75 tons of manure and 20 casks 

of flour, bound to Blakeney, in Norfolk; and having a crew of three hands all 

told, namely, a master, mate, and boy. At 10.30 p.m. of the 30th, at which time 

she was between the Nore and Mouse Lights, the mate came on watch, and the boy 

went below. The master also retired to his cabin, coming up, however, on deck 

from time to time; but at midnight he came on deck, and called the boy. At this 

time, we are told that the wind was light from the west-north-west, the sea was 

smooth, and the vessel was heading east and by north under all sail, making one 

and a half knots an hour, and she was nearing the Mouse Light. After he had 

called the boy, the master went aft, and he then observed the lights of a 

steamer a little on his starboard quarter. The lights that he saw were the 

mast-head and port lights, which showed that she was heading, not directly for 

the ketch,—for, if so, all three lights would have been visible,—but that her 

head was turned more or less away. As a fact, the steamer was then, as it 

proved, on a course parallel to that of the ketch, namely, east by north. 

Apprehending no danger, the master went down into the cabin to put the kettle on 

the fire, and, having done so, he returned on deck, and then observed that the 

steamer was closing in upon them. Becoming alarmed, he and the mate hailed the 

steamer as loud as they could, and the boy whistled through his fingers. No 

other steps appear to have been taken to attract the steamer's attention, and 

she came on and struck the ketch on the starboard quarter, sinking her almost 

immediately. The master succeeded in clambering up by the fore rigging on to the 

steamer's bow; the boy threw himself into the water, and was ultimately picked 

up by the steamer's boat; but the mate was unfortunately drowned.

The story told by the steamer's people is as follows: She is an iron vessel, of 

643 tons gross, 437 tons net register, and is fitted with engines of 80-horse 

power. She was built in 1866, and belongs to some gentlemen residing at 

Sunderland; Mr. Thomas Jowsey Reay, of No. 7, "The Cedars," Sunderland, being 

the managing owner. She appears to have been a good vessel, and was employed by 

her owners in carrying coals from Sunderland to London, returning to Sunderland 

in water ballast. She left London at 7 p.m., on the 30th of April last, having 

at the time a crew of 17 hands, all told. Having discharged her pilot at 

Gravesend, she proceeded down the river at full speed. It was the mate's watch 

from 8 to 12 that night, but the master was on the bridge the whole of that 

watch, and indeed seems to have been there from the time she left London. The 

vessel was steered from amidships, and the master stood on the bridge near the 

helmsman. At 12 o'clock the watch was called, and in about 10 minutes afterwards 

they came on deck. Graham, the boatswain, went to relieve the mate on the 

bridge; a man named Hall went on the topgallant forecastle on the look-out; and 

Harder went to the wheel. Just before the mate went below, the master, thinking 

that he was rather too near the Mouse Sand, ordered the helm to be altered half 

a point to east and by north half north; and after continuing on that course for 

a short time, it was again altered to north-east and by east half east. The 

night, we are told, was intensely dark. lights could be seen at a considerable 

distance, but objects not further than a ship's length. The vessel continued at 

full speed, going, we are told, about 9 knots; and almost immediately after the 

last alteration of the helm a cry was heard from forward, to starboard the helm. 

The master immediately gave orders to starboard the helm, and telegraphed to the 

engine room to stop the engines, and turn them full speed astern; but before 

these orders could take effect, she struck the ketch, with the results that I 

have already stated. No charge is made against the master of not having used due 

diligence to save the crew of the ketch; he seems to have lost no time in 

lowering his boat, and it was by that boat that the boy was saved.

Now it has not been denied by Mr. Roche that, under the 15th and 17th Articles 

of the Regulations, it was the duty of the "Sherburn," being a steamer as well 

as the overtaking vessel, to get out of the way of the "Union;" and the question 

which we have to consider is, how it was that the master of the "Sherburn" 

failed to discharge the duty thus cast upon him. The excuse given by the master 

is that the night was so dark that it was quite impossible to see the ketch 

sooner than she was seen, and that then it was not possible to avoid running 

into her; but that, if those on board the "Union" had shown a light, they would 

have seen her in sufficient time to have avoided her. That, as I understand it, 

is the defence set up by the master of the "Sherburn."

That the night was extremely dark, there can, I think, be no doubt whatever. All 

the witnesses from the "Sherburn" stated that an object could not be seen at 

more than a ship's length off; some said that they could not see the boat when 

it had got only about two or three times its own length from the ship; and the 

engineer told us that he could hardly see the men in the boat when she was 

alongside. The lad too from the "Union" stated that, whilst he was in the water, 

he could hear the voices of the men in the boat, but could not see them until 

they were close to him. The evidence is conclusive that the night was an 

intensely dark night; lights, no doubt, could be seen, but not objects on the 

water; and it was a night therefore in which it behoved the master to exercise 

more than ordinary precaution in navigating this vessel. Indeed, we were told by 

the mate that, in going down the river, he called the master's attention to the 

fact that, whilst lights could be seen, the hulls of vessels could not be made 


The master of the "Sherburn" told us, indeed, that, if the ketch had shown a 

light, he would have seen it, and have had time to avoid her. But, in the first 

place, the law imposes no such obligation upon an overtaken vessel. No doubt it 

is only reasonable to expect that a man, seeing a steamer bearing down upon him, 

should take all the means at his command to indicate his presence; and this the 

crew of the ketch appear to have ?? by shouting. hailing, and whistling. The 

master of the ketch told us that he had a flare-up in the cabin, but owing to 

the sudden alteration of the steamer's helm he had no time to go down and get 

it; nor could he take the light out of the binnacle lamp and show it, as the 

glass was fixed, and the light would have been instantly blown out. There 

appears then to be no blame attributable to those on board the ketch; indeed 

none such was charged; -they did all that could be expected of them under the 

circumstances to indicate their presence to the approaching steamer.

The question then arises, whether the master of the "Sherburn" was justified, on 

such a night and under such circumstances, in going down the river, and through 

a crowded channel, at such a speed that there was no time to avoid a collision 

with the "Union" after he had made her out. Now, I am relieved from having to 

make any very minute examination of this question, by the report of a case, 

which is to be found in the first volume of the Law Reports, Probate Division, 

entitled the "City of Brooklyn." It was an appeal from the Admiralty Division, 

and in giving judgment both Lord Justice James and Mr. Justice Lush made some 

remarks, which appear to me to be peculiarly applicable to the present case. 

Lord Justice James said:—"The learned Judge" (referring to the Judge of the 

Admiralty Division) "was of opinion that the " ship complained of was going at a 

speed not to be jus- " tified, having regard to the state of the night, the 

posi- " tion of the coast, and the probability of there being other " vessels in 

the way. I am bound to say that, however " convenient it may be for commerce and 

for travellers, " however convenient it may be to be able to go to Ame- " rica 

at 11 or 12 miles an hour, that is still a speed at " which it does not seem to 

us to be reasonable for a " steamer like this to go, when not far from the 

coast, and " on a night so dark, that, according to the evidence of " their own 

witnesses, they could not see another vessel " more than the length of the ship 

ahead." Mr. Justice Lush says:—"I am also of the same opinion. I think the " 

rule of law with regard to travelling at sea is identical " with the law of 

travelling on the high road. No one on " a dark night has a right to go at such 

a rate of speed as " not to be able to escape an accident if he happens to " 

follow immediately in the wake of another, whether it be " by sea or by land. I 

think that the rate of speed was " an unjustifiable rate for that vessel to run 

at on such a " dark night, when she could not discern another vessel " until 

within her own length of that vessel. As to con- " tributory negligence, I do 

not think there is any neces- " sity for a ship ahead to look out for ships that 

are " behind her, unless the danger is apparent. It is only " when there is an 

apparent danger that the necessity " arises to do the best they can for their 

own safety. Here " the persons on board the first ship did so, but when it " was 

too late."

Now it appears to me that the present is a much stronger case. In the case of 

the "City of Brooklyn" the vessels were in the open sea some 35 miles from the 

Old Head of Kinsale. Here they were in the "Swin," a channel little more than a 

mile wide, through which a great number of vessels, both sailing and steam 

vessels, pass up and down continually, and where the master of the "Sherburn" 

might reasonably expect that he would meet and overtake other vessels. It may 

perhaps be said that the "City of Brooklyn" was going from 11 to 12 miles an 

hour, whereas the "Sherburn" was only going at the rate of nine knots. Whether a 

speed of 11 or 12 knots an hour for a vessel like the "City of Brooklyn," with 

her large crew and strong and powerful engines, was or was not more than 

equivalent to a speed of nine knots for a vessel like the "Sherburn," with her 

comparatively small crew, and engines of only 80 horse power, may possibly be 

open to question; but, at any rate they were both going at full speed; and that 

under the circumstances, was an excessive rate of speed. In both cases the night 

was, according to their own admission, so dark that they could not see an object 

at more than a ship's length ahead, and in both cases the distance at which an 

object could be seen was not sufficient to enable them to avoid a collision.

It was said by Mr. Roche that, even had the "Sherburn" been going at only half 

speed, the collision would still have been inevitable. But we do not think that 

that is quite so clear. Had the "Sherburn" been going at only half speed, the 

time required to traverse the space between herself and the ketch would have 

been longer, and consequently she would have had more time, after sighting the 

ketch, to take steps to avoid the collision. As a matter of fact, the manœuvre 

which she adopted of starboarding her helm was the most unfortunate that she 

could have taken. When the two vessels were first approaching each other they 

were on parallel courses, both heading east by north, and the "Sherburn" being 

on the "Union's" starboard quarter, she would, had she continued her course, 

have passed clear along the "Union's" starboard side. It was the alteration of 

her helm from east and by north, first to east and by north half north, and 

afterwards to north by east by east half east, which brought about the collision 

by turning the steamer's head towards the ketch's stern. Had the steamer been 

going at only half speed, it is not at all impossible but that she might have 

passed clear under the stern of the other vessel before reaching her. But, at 

all events, if she had been going at only half speed, she could have been 

stopped much more quickly, and, as I have already said, she would have had more 

time to take measures for avoiding the collision.

It was also said that it is the universal practice of seamen to go at full speed 

on a dark night. All that we can say is, that if it is the universal practice of 

seamen, however convenient it may be to them and to their owners, it is a 

practice which this Court certainly will not countenance, and which is 

especially reprobated by Lord Justice James in the case of the "City of 

Brooklyn." There can be no doubt that this master has gained the respect and 

esteem of his owners, manifested by his having been in their service as master 

for a period, I think, of nine years. He was on deck, and attending to his 

duties, from the time of leaving London. At the same time we cannot allow a case 

of this description to pass unpunished. The object of the Court is to prevent 

other masters from doing as this master has done. A mere reprimand, in our 

opinion, would not have the same effect of preventing other masters from 

committing the offence of navigating a crowded channel at a rate of speed 

dangerous to the lives and property of those with whom he may fall in. As, 

however, the conduct of this man has on the whole been creditable in other 

respects, we shall award the smallest punishment which it is our practice to 

inflict, namely, the suspension of his certificate for three months, and during 

the time of that suspension we shall recommend to the Board of Trade that he 

have a first mate's certificate.

Of course you do not ask for any costs, Mr. Hamel?

Mr. Hamel.—No, I am not instructed to ask for any costs.

The Commissioner.—If you did, I do not think that under the circumstances we 

should be disposed to grant them.

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

W. 284. 60.—5/78. Wt. 35.


Advanced Search
Southampton City Council New Opportunities Fund Lloyd's Register London Metropolitan Archives National Maritime Museum World Ship Society  
Legal & Copyright * Partner sites: Bristol * Hartlepool * Liverpool * London * Southampton * Text only * About this site * Feedback