WRECK COMMISIONER'S COURT
(Before Mr. H.C. ROTHERY, the Wreck Commissioner, with Assessors)

THE DOURO AND THE YRURAC BOAT

Captain Knox, R.N., and Captain Methven were the Assessors. Judgement was given in this inquiry into the disastrous collision between an English mail steamer and a Spanish steamer, with loss of many lives and both vessels.

The Wreck Commissioner said that the court was placed in a position of some difficulty from the fact that no witness had been produced from the Yrurac Bat, and that the master and three of the mates of the Douro had gone down with that vessel. The Douro was an iron screw steamship belonging to London, of 2,846 tons gross and 1,803 tons net register. She was built at Greenock in 1865, and was regularly employed by her owners, the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, in carrying passengers and mails between this country and Brazil. She left Lisbon on the 31st of March, with a crew of 80 hands, 60 Passengers, and a general cargo. On the evening of the next day the weather was clear and squally, with a strong breeze from south-west, and a heavy ground swell. About 10.30 the lookout man forward reported the bright light of a steamer, which afterwards proved to be the Yrurac Bat, three or four points on the starboard bow. He was answered by the chief officer whose watch it was. Some little time afterwards the red light was seen. Nothing was done. The vessel continued her course at full speed, and when the two vessels had approached much nearer the chief officer ordered the helm of the Douro to be starboarded. The steersman put the helm over as hard as he could, but the vessel did not pay off. The chief officer gave orders to hard-a-starboard : the man at the helm, finding he could not get the helm over by himself, called for assistance. Two or three hands came, and they had just got the helm over when the Yrurac Bat struck them on the starboard side at right angles, a little forward of the after hatch.

The Yrurac Bat rebounded, and came into them again, smashing the two after boats on the starboard side, the gig and the dingy. The Douro went ahead full speed, the Yrurac Bat passing under her stern. The master came up on deck, and finding the vessel still going at full speed, ordered the engines to be stopped, and that was done. The master at the same time ordered all the boats to be got out. About 20 minutes after the collision the Yrurac Bat , which had sustained very considerable injury in her bows, went down head foremost, the Douro following her in a few minutes to the bottom, sinking stern foremost. The boats from the Douro had in the meantime pulled towards a vessel which come up, the Hidalgo, and were taken on board, but the master, three of the mates, the purser, the boatswain, two engineers, six of the crew, and six of the passengers of the Douro were drowned. How many were drowned on board the Yrurac Bat the court did not know; but they were told that there were a great many more drowned from her than on board the Douro. The Board of Trade had asked the opinion of the Court upon a number of questions, and before he proceeded to deal with those questions he thought it right to make some remarks upon the recent practice of submitting to the Court a great number of questions, some of which appeared to have little reference to the evidence which had been given. Some travelled over the same ground again. He was told by the Assessors that the same thing occurred in inquiries before magistrates in the country, and he did think that it led to very considerable inconvenience. In the present case the Court had had a list of 29 questions submitted to them. Those, however, had been reduced to ten questions. The learned counsel for the Board of Trade felt himself some difficulty in putting the questions in the order in which they had been submitted, and he took a course, in which the Court felt disposed to follow him, of arranging the questions under four separate heads -- first as to the cause of the collision, secondly as to the manning of the vessel, thirdly as to the boats, and fourthly as to the loss of live. To those the Court would add some remarks with regard to the watertight bulkheads, and something with regard to the steam-steering gear, and that the Court thought would cover in a more convenient way the whole ground of the inquiry. First as to the cause of the collision. It seemed to be clear that the red light of the Yrurac Bat when first seen was some three or four points on the starboard bow. It was clear that the Douro continued her course at full speed until after the collision, and it was perfectly clear that no effective steps were taken to alter the course of the Douro until the collision was imminent. It was obvious, whether the other vessel was approaching at right angles to the course of the Douro or, whether she was angling towards her, the position was one of extreme danger, and if both vessels continued on their course a collision would be inevitable. Under those circumstances it was incumbent upon one vessel or the other to have taken some course to avoid the collision. The 16th article of the regulations imposed that obligation upon the vessel which had the other on her own starboard side, that was, it imposed that duty on the Douro. The Douro took no course whatever to avoid the collision ; primaí facic, therefore, she was responsible. But it was said that the Yrurac Bat must have been on a course inclining nuch more towards the Douro than a right angle course, and that as she approached she must have been kept under a port helm with a view of passing ahead of the Douro. That, of course, was pure conjecture. It might have been so. If so the Yrurac Bat was to blame, for it was her duty to keep her course. There was not a particle of evidence to show that the Yrurac Bat had ported her helm in the way suggested. The facts, as proved from the evidence of the witnesses of the Douro, were quite consisted with the fact that the Yrurac Bat kept her course until just before the collision, when she seemed to have starboarded her helm with the view of passing astern of the Douro. So far, therefore, as the evidence went the blame appeared to attach to the Douro. It appeared that originally the vessel had five mates, 10 petty officers, 20 able seamen, eight ordinary seamen, six engineers, 27 firemen, and 48 other persons, or a total of 124 persons to 130 on some voyages. On her last voyage she had four mates, six petty officers, 14 able seamen, two ordinary seamen, four engineers, 21 firemen, and 28 other persons. Two reasons had been given for this diminution. It was stated that the rigging of the vessel had been altered, and that, whereas she had originally two steam winches to work her sails, she had afterwards four steam winches, beside a steam capstan, and that those additions saved a great deal of labour ; so that the Court was disposed to make the greatest possible allowance. It was also stated that in 1879 the engines of the Douro had been compounded, by which a great saving in consumption of fuel had been effected and, at the same time, a much smaller number of firemen were required. What the Court had to consider was whether there was a sufficient number of hands for the proper working of that vessel. They could not but think that there was a sufficient crew for the purpose of performing the regular duties and supplying an effective watch on board that vessel. The Court. however, thought that there should have been a second standby at the wheel, apart from the look-out on the bridge. That brought them to the question whether or not it would have been a necessary precaution on a vessel like the Douro that she should have been fitted with steam steering gear. Most of the large ships now were fitted with steam steering gear, and the Court could hardly suppose that those vessels would be so fitted unless it had been clearly shown that it was attended with very great advantage. No doubt steam steering gear had its disadvantages, like all complicated machinery. For instance, if steam gave out, as the Court had known in one instance, then the vessel was fixed, and if the ship was in a narrow channel there was danger of her going ashore. Apart from that, steam steering gear was an extremely useful and desirable adjunct to those large vessels. In the present case, had the Douro been fitted with steam steering gear, the one man who was at the wheel would have been able at once to have put the helm hard-a-starboard, and have altered the course of the vessel in accordance with the directions of the chief officer. The vessel had altogether nine boats, consisting of four lifeboats, two cutters, a gig, a dingy, and a mail boat. The gig and dingy were both smashed. The other boats, however, notwithstanding the weather and the short time between the collision and the foundering of the vessel, were all got into the water with safety, and, so far as the Court could say, the boats were in perfectly good order. It was said one or two of the boats were leaky, but that seemed to have been due to the fact that the plugs were, as a matter of course, open. When the plugs were closed the boats seemed to have ceased to leak. Again, it was said that the oars were lashed to the bottom of the boats and that the rowlocks were tied up in a bundle. No doubt it would have been much better that each rowlock should have been fastened by lanyards close to the place where it was to be shipped, but it did not appear that any very serious difficulty arose, for all the boats reached the Hidalgo safely. The Court thought, therefore, there was no ground whatever for saying those boats were not quite sufficient for all purposes, and that they were not properly equipped in all respects. Another question was, what was the cause of the loss of live, and were the officers justified in allowing the boats to leave the vessel without them? He might first observe that it did not appear at all that the officers did intend to allow the boats to leave the ship without them. The officers, in the opinion of the Court, discharged their duty in a marvelous way. They remained on board their vessel for the purpose of assisting the passengers into the boats. He was told by the Assessors that is was the duty of the officers to have remained on board the vessel until they had seen the passengers and crew into the boats and then to have got in themselves.

Unfortunately, owing to the short time there was before the vessel went down and the state of the sea, they had not time to get into the boats ; but there was no blame to be attributed to them on that account. The chiefís loss of life seemed to have been among the officers and crew, and not among the passengers. The loss of one passenger had been due, as Sir Henry Becher had told them, to her unwillingness to get into the boat ; He told the Court that she had as good an opportunity as he and his wife had, and he tried to persuade her, but she refused to go. She was the only female passenger lost. There were 14 of the crew out of 80 drowned, and only six passengers out of 60, showing the great efforts made by the officers and crew to save the lives of the passengers. There was ample evidence to show that the men were properly exercised in the duty of lowering their boats on the voyage. There remained one other question, with regard to the watertight compartments. It appeared that the vessel had seven bulkheads, independently of a bulkhead in the after part of the vessel. In the bulkheads in the main deck there were watertight doors for the convenience of the passengers and crew in passing along the main deck. Those doors might be closed in a case of emergency. There was also doors between the engine-room and the coal bunkers. But whether those doors were closed at the time of the collision the Court were unable to say. They were asked, how did it happen that the Douro, being built in seven watertight compartments, foundered half an hour after she was struck? The reason was obvious. The collision occurred just in the way of the bulkhead which separated the two largest compartments of the vessel. The water consequently would pour, not only into the after compartment, but also into the engine-room, and then through the doors, if open, of the engine-room into the coal bunkers. That was the cause, no doubt, of the vessel going down so quickly. It was an unfortunate position for a vessel to be struck in, but it was impossible to provide a vessel with so many watertight compartments that it was impossible, under any circumstances, that she should think.

Mr. Mansel Jones and Mr. Snagge appeared for the Solicitor to the Board of Trade ( Mr. W. Murton); Mr. Butt, Q.O., and Dr. Phillimore for the owners of the Douro.

Read the next news report The Douro - Saturday, July 15, 1882

Go back to the News Report Menu