The Sun.
London, England, 1866-09-22 00:00:00

ThE SON, LONDoN, SATURDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER 22, 1866.

The Collision between the Haswell and
Bruiser Steamers.

The following is the official report on the recent
inquiry relative to this casualty :
Greenwich Police-court, Sept. 15, 1866.

The following is the report of the inquiry into
the cause of the collision of the screw collier steamer
Haswell and the screw passenger steamer Bruiser :
This was a case of collision betwixt two screw
steamers, the Haswell and Bruiser, on the morning
of the 19th of August last, on the coast of Suffolk.
The Haswell was a screw collier of 560 17-100 re-
gistered tonnage and 90-horse power, and the Bruiser
a screw passenger steamer of 343 92-100 registered
tonnage and 80-horse power. The llaswell was
owned by Mr. J. Feu wick and others, and the
Bruiser was the property of the General Steam Na-
vigation Company. She was employed in the Ilull
and London trade, and was in every respect fitted
out in conformity with the requirements of law as a
steam passenger ship. Both vessels were furnished
with lights as required by the Admiralty regulations.
At the time of the collision the Haswell was bound
northward in ballast, and the Bruiser was on her
passage from Hull to London with cargo and (as is
believed) about 90 passengers. The exact number
is not known, there being no list of passengers, and
some of them having return tickets. The vessels
came into collision about 2.30 a.m., on the 19th,
about four or five miles off the coast, in the neigh-
bourhood of Aldborough. The Haswell and Bruiser,
when they approached each other, being in a direc-
tion to meet end on, or so nearly as to involve a risk
.of collision, the helms of both should have been put
to port, so as to pass on the port side of each other,
as directed by Art. 13 of the " Regulations for Pre-
venting Collisions at Sea." Instead of observing
this pale, the chief mate of the Bruiser put his helm
a-starboard when between 300 and 400 yards from
the Haswell, mistaking, as he alleges, her bright
light for the riding light of a ship at anchor, and
without due regard to the difference between a
riding light and the height of a mast-head light.
In a minute or two after putting hie helm a-star-.
board, on seeing the Haswell close upon him, he
ordered the helm to be put hard a-starboard, but
too late to avoid the collision, the Haswell, at the
same time, porting her helm. The vessels met, the
stem of the Haswell striking the Bruiser on her
starboard beam amidships, and penetrating deeply
into her hull. In this state the two vessels remained
together, the Bruiser being, as it were, impaled upon
the stem of the Haswell. The engines of the Has-
well were kept slowly moving a-head, by which
means the Bruiser was kept afloat about 10minutes,
during which time, by most prompt and judicious
exertions, 96 persons were rescued from the sinking
ship. It is apprehended that as many as 13 persons
at least must have gone down with the Bruiser
when the Haswell backed out of her, and she sunk.
The Haswell was found to have sustained very con-
siderable injury, but was able to return to London,
having on board those who were saved from the
other ship. It is agreed by all the witnesses that
the night was fine and clear, so that the lights of
the ship might be seen from two or three miles, and
hull from half a mile to a mile off. There was no
throng of shipping, or any other circumstance, to
account for the collision, which can only, therefore,
be ascribed to some default of the persons in charge
of one or both vessels. As usual on these occasions,
each party lays the blame on the other. The case
stated by the witnesses from the Haswell is to the
effect that whilst they were proceeding, in a course
N.E. i N., at the rate of 7f to 8 knots, the mast-
head light of an approaching steamer was reported,
and in a few minutes the red light. These lights
had scarcely been seen, and the helm of the
Haswell ported to widen the distance, when
the approaching steamer (which afterwards
proved to be the Bruiser) suddenly put her helm
hard a-starboard, and endeavoured to run across the
bows of the Haswell. Seeing this, the mate of the
Haswell, after an exclamation of surprise at the
recklessness of the person in charge of the Bruiser,
put his helm hard a-port, and almost immediately
the collision took place, and which witnesses from
the Haswell ascribe to bad look-out on board the
Bruiser. On the other hand, the case as stated by
the witnesses from the Bruiser was to the effect that
whilst she was proceeding on her course S.W. by S.,
the three lights of a steamer were, discovered right
ahead. This vessel (as afterwards appeared) was a
steamer called the Grenadier, bound northward, and
which about 10 or 15 minutes previously had passed
to starboard of the Haswell. That the Bruiser ported
her helm to pass the Grenadier, and almost imme-
diately afterwards a bright light, which was the
Haswell's masthead light, was seen nearly ahead, or
at most one point on the starboard bow, which was
taken to be the riding light of a vessel at anchor.
That the helm of the Bruiser was then put a-star-
board, and immediately afterwards, upon sight, for
the first time, of the Haswell's red light, was put
hard a-starboard, when she ran under the Haswell's
bows, and the collision which then took place is, by
the witnesses of the Bruiser, ascribed to the defec-
tive lights, particularly the red light, of the llas-
well. In this conflicting state of testimony we have,
fortunately, the evidence of two or three disinte-
rested witnesses. First, there is the evidence of John
Jeffels, master of the schooner Perseverance, who
states that he noticed the Haswell's lights when she
was astern of him, and could distinctly see the three
lights at 1 to 2 miles distance. A question had
been raised whether this witness had not mistaken
the lights of the Grenadier for those of the
Haswell, but he speaks unhesitatingly that they
were the Haswell's. He also states that when
the Haswell was passing close to him, he saw
the masthead and red
lights, but not the
green light, of the Bruiser, from which it is to
be inferred that the Bruiser must have been to port
of the Haswell, and should have seen her red light,
which was then burning clearly. Again, in corrobo-
ration of the case of the Haswell, the chief mate of
the Grenadier states that after passing the Haswell,
and getting ahead of her, he saw her three lights,
and could see her hull well. That the lights were
burning brightly,. and were good lights. That after
passing the Haswell and the schooner Perseverance
he kept his course, and was then on the port bow of
the Haswell. That he then passed to port of the
Bruiser, about a length off, without having occasion
to port his helm, and that aftei passing him the
Bruiser went across the wake of the Grenadier in the
direction of the Haswell, the Haswell then being
about a point and a half on the starboard side of the
Grenadier's wake. This Witness's evidence is con-
firmed by that of the chief engineer of the Grenadier,
who was also on deck at the time. From this inde-
pendent evidence, Corroborating the testimony of the
witnesses from the Haswell, two conclusions seem to
follow :—First, that the Haswell's lights up to the
period of the collision were burning clearly ; and,
secondly, that if a proper look-out had been kept on
board the Bruiser, the red light of the Haswell might
have been seen by the Bruiser before, or at all events
immediately on ber passing the Grenadier; and there-
fore, that the officerin charge of the Bruiser, by star-
boarding his helm and going under the bows of the
Haswell, committed a breach of the Regulations for
Preventing Collisions at Sea, Table (C), Art. 13, in the
Schedule to the Merchant Shipping Amendment Act,
1862. In consequence of the non-observance of this
rule, the damage arising from the collision in this
case is, by the 299th section of the Merchant Ship-
ping Act, 1852, to be deemed to have been occa-
sioned by the wilful default of John Scott, chief
mate of the Bruiser, the person in charge of the ship
circum-
stances in the case making a departure from the
on a careful
rule necessary, the court, to be no at,the time ; and as there appeared
considera-
tion of all the circumstances, and maturely weigh-
ing the evidence adduced on behalf of the respec-
tive vessels, as well as of those witnesses who were
not interested, came to the conclusion that Jolla
Scott, the chief mate of the Bruiser, was guilty of a
and loss of the Bruiser,
as cancelled from
tadhne
ifdsa uf
dol tar causingtteh.
is
It
defaultwtha es
hcci
soo lulciteseri
not
idle
cda
teen w
the part of chief
mate of the Bruiser that the Grenadier might have
intercepted the view of the side lights of the Has-
wellpassed the Bruiser, and
h
confused by the brightness
oft att h
h until ne
might
ligthehts
t hhave formerathadbeen i
ust had
been
passed.
The court
could not assume this to have been the case, in the
absence of positive proof, and it could be urged only