The Sun.
London, England, 1862-06-23 00:00:00

OFFICIAL REPORT.

COLLISION:— BARQUE- STIRLINGSIIIRE AND
PILOT CUTTER PRINCESS.
Greenwich Police Court, June 17, 1862.
My Lords,—ln compliance with your lordships'
instructions, I have, with the assistance of Captains
Harris and Scott, as Nautical Assessors, made in-
quiry into the case of the collision between the
barque Stirlingehire and the pilot cutter Princess on
the morning of the 22d of Slay last ; and I have the
honour to report to your lordships the evidence,
together with the opinions of the assessors and my-
self, as to the causes of the collision. The Stirling-
shire is a barque of 365 tons, and was commanded
by Charles John Grimmer, who holds a Board of
Trade certificate of competency, dated Ist May,
1851. The Princess is a pilot cutter of 51 tons, be-
longing to the Corporation of the Trinity-house,
and was commanded by Francis Atherden, who has
been 25 years in this service, and during five years
of that time in command of pilot cutters. The
collision occurred three or four miles S. and by W.
of Dover, about thirty minutes after midnight of
the 21st of May, and was attended with the very
serious consequences of the loss of two lives, besides
great damage to the cutter and the imminent peril
of all on board. The Stirlingshire was on her
voyage from Trinidad to London, and was proceed•
ing up channel, under foresail, double reefed fore-
topsail, whole mainsail, and maintopgallantsail.
She had taken on board a Deal Voatman off
Dungeness to bring her into the Downs, there being
no licensed pilot to be met with at that time. The
Princess was beating up to her station (the Eastern
Station) between Dover and Folkestone, having 14
Trinity pilots on board, in addition to her own crew
of six men, besides the master. The night was clear,
and the wind moderate, till about midnight, when
it became squally. About the time the collision
took place the barque, having previously taken
in her mainroyal, was in the act of clewing up
her maintopgallantsail, and the cutter, having pre-
viously taken a second reef in her mainsail, was in
the act of taking a reef in her foresail, having
hove to on the port tack, and lowered the sail for
that purpose. At this time the course of the barque
was N.E. by E., the wind being W. by S., and the
cutter was heading N.W., westerly. The night,
though squally, with rain, was yet so far clear that
a ship's lights might have been seen from a half to
three quarters of a mile off. A collision undersuch
circumstances can only be accounted for by an ab-
sence of proper lights, or of a proper look -out on one
or both of the vessels, and several witnesses from
on board each of them have been examined as to this
point. Their evidence, as is customary in such cases,
is of a very contradictory nature. The master of
the barque, the second mate, and two apprentices,
and the Deal boatmen who were on board of her, all
agree in swearing that her side lights were in their
proper places, in the mizen rigging, and in proper
condition ; whilst, on the other hand, the master and
two seamen of the cutter, and three of the pilots,
all concur in swearing that they saw no side lights
in the barque, though they saw a bright light which
she was carrying on or under the cap of her bow-
sprit; and they add, that as they get on board the
barque, between the main and wizen rigging on the
starboard side, from the cutter, they must, they
think, have seen a green light, had there been one
there. From this strong negative testimony, coupled
with the evidence of what was said by the master
of the barque in answer to observations made re-
specting his lights, it is impossible to give entire
credit to the statements of the crew of the barque
with regard to the state of the lights. It is admitted
that a short time before the collision the lights had
been taken into the deck-house to be trimmed, and
the probability is, that this was done just at the
time of the collision. At all events, no doubt can
exist in the mind of any one reading the evidence
on this point that the side lights on board the
barque were not visible in the manner required by
the Admiraltylregnlations, and that this neglect
directly tended to produce the collision, for which
the master of the barque is therefore responsible,
under the provisions of the statute, as for a wilful
default. It may be here observed, that under any
circumstances, the removal of the lamps for the
space of three or four minutes each, as is stated, for
the purpose of trimming them, thus leaving the ship
during that time without lights, is itself a neglect
of the Admiralty regulations and of the Statute,
and May be the cause of serious injury; nor can it
be said that carrying lights nearly on the gunwale,
in the mizen rigging, is a strict compliance with the
Admiralty regulations, as it is obvious that, so
placed, they cannot showa light " rightafelicet mustad,"as
the beam of the vessel or some other ob
evidence discloses two other subjects for
intervene. Besides the question of side lights, the
his bowsprit,
sion as to the conduct of. the
—viz., his carrying a brighour at the
oing at the time of
least," at which the vessel date
and the speed, "seven or eight knots an
carrying the
• by the 295th section of
bright light, besides being, lightnistorn ofthe barque
the collision. With rega his ca •
the Merchant Shipping Act, subject to a penalty of
£2O, is made a case of . ilfulusdinegfaluolsts.byThthoueg2h99ththe
section, in the event of it wilful default by the 299th
section, in the event of its ca
yt
wgoases
dsiorefeatrly the
as to as
evidence s
vldhenthceatinthtihsisease
bright h al
rgdhl
of the collision, it was undoubtedly calculated to
serious evil, as, to a certain
very it
produce extent,
seems to have misled the master of the cutter in this
instance. The pilots do not appear to notice this
breach of the regulations as they ought to do. In-
stead of allowing it to be used as a signal for a
pilot, it may be advisable that
the pilots should be
directed to point out the irregularity, and make an
entry in their log of the name of •
the ship,, so that
the offence may be punished, or some other steps
taken to enforce the observance of the law. With
regard to the last point
—viz., the speed at which the
barque was proceeding—that is a purely nautical
question, and the opinion of the assessors upon it is
expressed in the following words of Capt. Harris :
—" Under the circumstances of wind, weather, and
position, his vessel being then off Dover, the master
was not justified—and not having a responsible pilot
on board—in proceeding through a pilot station, and
the track of vessels to and from the Downs, with his
ship under so little command, that when a light is
seen he was unable to avoid a collision. He might
have proceeded under easy sail, and might have
rounded too for a pilot. He neglected these pre.
cautions, and incurs,
consequently, the responsibi-
lities of his act." In conformity with this opinion,
in which I fully concur, I am justified in pronounc-
ing that the improper speed at which the barque
at the time of
suffered to proceed before and
was
the collision, was a default of the masternd loss of life.
contributing to the results of darnagtehea
proceedings
In conclusion, I must remark that
to have been
on the part of the cutter appear
that, exposed as the
entirely free from blame, and
are to constant risk
persons engaged in this service
injured by the imprudence
of being run down or
i
or inattention of those
n charge of vessels in
t place themselves in order
whose track they must