Taunton Gallery

A half-block model of the saling vessel Taunton.

Close-up of the brass disc giving details of the vessel.

Official No. 60830: Code Letters JLRB.

Owners: 1868 Watts, William Milburn & Co, Newcastle-on-Tyne: 1881 GH Meager & Co, Swansea: 1892 JA Ferreira & Co, Lisbon-Portugal-renamed Emilia.

Masters: 1868-71 J Hogg: 1872-73 W Chalmers: 1874 Cochrane: 1875-77 J Clark: 1878-81 Armstrong: 1882-89 G Williams: 1890 D Thomas: 1891-92 Oates: 1893 L deAlmeida

Crew September 1880:

Campbell, apprentice

Erickson, helmsman

Hindmarsh, apprentice

Lawrence, mate

Nielson, able seaman

Voyages: 1874 her decks were fitted with sheep pens to transport 72 animals belonging to Mr JT Ford & Co. 11 of the sheep died on the journey including a prize Lincolnshire ram. The Taunton left Gravesend on 10 May 1874 On 11 June 1874 she crossed the equator & arrived at Lyttelton, New Zealand, anchoring at Ripa Island on 7 September, the journey from England having taken 117 days. It had been the stormiest passage the master had experienced since 1849.

2 July 1875 she sailed from Gravesend with passengers & cargo & arrived in 96 days on 6 October 1875 at Port Chalmers-New Zealand.

The Taunton left Havre on 24 September 1880 in ballast with a crew of 18 bound for the Tyne. On 2 October she was in collision with the Aberdeen schooner Curlew which sank with the loss of six of her eight hands. The master of the Taunton was found to blame for the casualty & had his certificate suspended for nine months.

5 March 1881 sailed from Galle bound from the Tyne for Hong Kong.

January 1883 bound from Swansea for Caldera put into Queenstown with loss of main topgallant mast & foresail.

Bound from Lourenco Marques for New Orleans the Emilia grounded on Thunderbolt Rock on 17/07/1898 & was towed to Port Elizabeth but sank.

Board of Trade Wreck Report:
"CURLEW" and "TAUNTON." 

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876. 

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at the Civil Court, Moot Hall, Newcastle-on-Tyne, on the 13th and 15th of November 1880, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Rear Admiral APLIN, R.N., Captain KENNEDY and Captain VAUX, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the loss of the British sailing ship "CURLEW," of Aberdeen, and the loss of the lives of five of her crew through collision with the British sailing ship "TAUNTON," of London, on the 2nd of October last outside Yarmouth Roads. 

Report of Court. 

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed,- 

1. That the collision was due to the "Taunton" having kept her course for too long a time, endeavouring to get to the windward of the "Curlew," instead of porting her helm in due time and going to leeward of her, as it was her duty to do. 

2. That there was a good look-out being kept on board both vessels, each having seen the other at the distance of between two and three miles. 

3. That Edward Gawne, the mate of the "Curlew," is not to blame for the collision, that vessel having been close hauled on the starboard tack, and having kept her course in accordance with Article 22 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. 

4. That Thomas Farrell, the master of the "Taunton," is solely to blame for the collision, that vessel having been on the port tack, and not having kept out of the way of the "Curlew," which was close hauled on the starboard tack, as she was bound to do in accordance with Article 14 (b) of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. 

5. That whether every possible effort was made after the collision to save life, no charge is made in respect thereof by the agents either of the Board of Trade or of the "Curlew." 

For these wrongful acts and defaults the Court suspends the certificate of Thomas Farrell, the master of the "Taunton," for nine months, but recommends that during the period of its suspension he be allowed a first mate's certificate. 

Mr. de Hamel asked the Court to condemn the said Thomas Farrell, the master, in the costs; but the Court is of opinion that the suspension of his certificate is a sufficient punishment. 

Dated this 15th day of November 1880. 

(Signed) H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner. We concur in the above report. 

Annex to the Report. 

This case was heard at Newcastle-upon-Tyne on the 13th and 15th of November instant, when Mr. de Hamel appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Ingledew for the owners and crew of the "Curlew," Mr. Strachan for the owners of the "Taunton," and Mr. Bramwell for the master of the latter vessel. Twelve witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. de Hamel asked the opinion of the Court upon the following questions:- 

" 1. What was the cause of the collision between the " schooner 'Curlew' and the ship 'Taunton' about " seven miles to the southward and eastward of the " Newarp Light on the 2nd of October 1880, which " resulted in the foundering of the 'Curlew' and the " loss of five lives? 

" 2. Whether such collision was caused by the " wrongful acts and defaults of Edward Gawne, the " mate of the 'Curlew,' and Thomas Farrell, the " master of the 'Taunton?' 

" (1.) In neglecting to comply with Article 14 (b) of " the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at " Sea, and, 

" (2.) In neglecting to keep a proper look-out, as " required by Article 24 of the said Regu- " lations? 

" 3. Whether every possible effort was made after the " collision to save life?" 

Mr. de Hamel further stated that, "If the Court finds " that Thomas Farrell is in default, his certificate " should, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, be " dealt with." 

All parties having stated that they had no further evidence to produce, and Mr. Ingledew, Mr. Strachan, and Mr. Bramwell having been heard on behalf of their respective parties, and Mr. de Hamel having replied, the Court proceeded to give judgment upon the questions on which its opinion had been asked. 

The object of this inquiry is to ascertain the circumstances under which a collision occurred between the schooner "Curlew," of Aberdeen, and the three-masted ship "Taunton," of London, outside of Yarmouth Roads on the 2nd of October ultimo; and the principal question which we have to consider is, whether anyone, and, if so, who is to blame for this collision? 

The case set up by the "Curlew" is as follows:-She is a schooner of 216 tons gross and 209 tons net register, built at Prince Edward's Island in the year 1865, and at the time of her loss was the property of the Aberdeen Line Company, Mr. George Thompson Harvey, of No. 106, Crown Street, Edinburgh, being the managing owner. She left Aberdeen on the 28th of September last with a cargo of stone, and a crew of eight hands all told, bound to London, and at a little before 4 a.m. of the 2nd of October ultimo she was off the Newarp Light Ship, the wind at the time being from the westward, blowing a fresh breeze, and the vessel being under all sail heading south, and making from 4 1/2 to 5 miles an hour through the water, the flood-tide also being in her favour. At 10 minutes to 5 o'clock, the vessel was hauled close to the wind upon a S.S.W. course, her proper course being S.W. by S., but the wind would not allow her to lie it. At 5.15 they observed a vessel, which afterwards proved to be the "Taunton," nearly right ahead, but a little on the weather bow, and steering, as they thought, a N. by E. course. The "Curlew" being on the starboard tack close hauled, and thinking that the "Taunton" would alter her course so as to go clear of them, continued her course close hauled to the wind until they had approached to within a quarter of a mile of one another, when the "Taunton," which was then to windward of her, suddenly ported her helm and came down upon her, striking her with her stem on the starboard bow In two to three minutes afterwards the "Curlew" sank, the mate and two of the crew alone succeeding in saving their lives by clambering up by the bows of the "Taunton," the other five being unfortunately drowned. At the moment of the collision the "Taunton's" anchor, which was hanging from her port bow, ran out and brought the vessel up. In about an hour afterwards the mate and the two hands from the "Curlew" were taken off in a fishing boat and were landed at Yarmouth. The "Curlew" attributes the collision to the "Taunton" having kept too long on her course, instead of giving way, as they say she should have done, and to her putting her helm hard up, but too late to avoid a collision. 

The case set up by the "Taunton" is as follows:-She is a three-masted ship of 704 tons gross and 687 tons net register, belonging to the port of London, built at Hartlepool in the year 1868, and at the time of the collision was the property of Mr. William Milburn, of Newcastle-on-Tyne, and others, Mr. Milburn being the managing owner. She left Havre on the 24th of September last in ballast, with a crew of 18 hands, bound for the Tyne, and at a quarter before 6 of the 2nd of October following, orders were given to haul up the fore and main sails, and to lay the cross jack yards aback for the purpose of taking a cast of the lead. As scon as a cast had been taken, the vessel was again put on her course N. by W., the wind blowing a fresh breeze from about W. by N., and the vessel being under all plain sail except royals, and making about seven knots an hour. The master, whose watch it was, then ordered the foresail to be again set, and whilst the men were engaged in doing this the look-out man reported two vessels a little oil the starboard bow. Orders were thereupon given to keep the sails full, and we are told that the helm was ported about a point, which would bring the vessels about right ahead; the helm was then steadied, and the vessel continued her course about N. to N. 1/2 E. After a time the vessel which was farthest to the westward, and which proved to be the "Curlew," was observed to pass to windward of them, clear of the leach of the fore and main sails on the port side. The "Taunton" was still kept on her course until they had got to within a quarter of a mile of one another, when the helm of the "Curlew" was observed to have been suddenly put hard up, upon which the master of the "Taunton" ordered the helm of his vessel to be put hard-a-port, but the "Curlew" came on and with her starboard bow struck the "Taunton" on the port bow, with the results that have been already stated. The "Taunton" attributes the collision to the "Curlew" having improperly starboarded her helm when she was to windward of the "Taunton." 

Now it is an admitted fact in the case that the "Curlew," whether she was on a S.S.W. course, as her mate states, or whether she was on a S.W. by S. course, as the master of the "Taunton" supposed, was close hauled to the wind on the starboard tack. Whether then the "Taunton" was close hauled on the port tack, or was going free, it was clearly her duty to keep out of the way of the "Curlew." 

So far indeed as the "Curlew" is concerned, the evidence of her mate is quite clear. He told us that lie was the officer of the watch at the time, and that, as the vessels approached one another, he was standing by the man at the wheel; and that the vessel was kept close hauled to the wind on the starboard tack up to the very moment of the collision. His evidence was confirmed to a certain extent by that of Skinner, the cook of the "Curlew," who was below until just before collision, and who told us that, when he came on deck, their vessel was close hauled on the starboard tack, and remained so up to the collision. But the strongest confirmation of the evidence of Gawne, the mate, was given by the master and one of the crew of the "George Andrews," the vessel which was in company with them, and which was upon the same course, and about a quarter of a mile astern of and a little to leeward of her; these men both told us that they saw the "Taunton" bearing down upon them, and believing that she would run into the "Curlew" unless she altered her course, they watched them, and they state most positively that the "Curlew" did not alter her course until the collision. 

And now how stands the case as regards the "Taunton?" Her case, it should be observed, rests upon the evidence of the master, who was, as the vessels approached one another, on deck, standing close to the wheel. According to him, he heard the vessels reported, looked ahead, and saw them barely, as he says, a point on the starboard bow, the one being about 1/2 a point to leeward of the other. He admits that it was his duty to give way, and he says that he ordered the man at the wheel to keep the sails full, and that he ported about a point, and then steadied. He said that he had before been heading N. by W., the wind being W. by N., and that he altered the vessel's course to about North to N. 1/2 E.; but this, according to his own shewing, would only bring the vessel about right ahead. He then says that he continued his course, and that the "Curlew" gradually drew to windward of him, until she had cleared the weather leach of his fore and main sails; where the "George Andrews" was at that time he does not say. He then says that he continued his course, until the vessels were within a quarter of a mile of one another, when the "Curlew" suddenly put her helm hard up, upon which he hard-a-ported his helm, but that he was not able to avoid a collision. 

Now the master's statement as to his having ported his helm one point after the vessels were first reported, and as to the "Curlew" having got to windward of them before the "Taunton" hard-a-ported her helm, is entirely unsupported by any one of the crew. Take, first, Lawrence, the mate of the "Taunton," who gave his evidence in a very straightforward way. He says,- " I was engaged hauling the yards round; whilst " doing this the man on the look out, named Nielson, " reported two ships right ahead, and I passed the " word to the master. 1 then went on with my work, " bracing the yards round. After that, a few minutes " after, the look-out man came aft to me on the main " deck, and asked me if I saw the vessels. I jumped " then on the weather rail and could see them both. " They were about half a point on the lee bow, that " would be on the starboard bow." He then says that the "Curlew" was then "A good quarter of a mile off, " that the 'Taunton' was at that time standing on her " course, laying N. by W., close hauled to the wind;" and that, "After that she was kept a good full, bringing " the vessels a little open on the weather bow." According therefore to the mate of the "Taunton," no alteration had been made in the course of the "Taunton" from the time the two vessels were first reported, but she was kept on her course close hauled, until the "Curlew" had got to within a quarter of a mile of them, at which time the "Curlew" was still half a point on the "Taunton's" starboard bow, the "Taunton" being close hauled on the port tack; and that then, and then only, the helm of the "Taunton" was ported, which brought the "Curlew" on their port bow. 

Let us next take the evidence of the look out man, Nielson. He stated that when he first saw and reported the vessels, they were on his starboard bow, and that they continued on his starboard bow until they had come, or rather, the foremost of them, the "Curlew," had come so close that he feared a collision, and he accordingly went aft to the mate, who was on the main deck, and asked him did he see them. He said that, when he reported them the second time, what he said was, "They are coming closer, and that at that time they were about 1/2 a point on the starboard bow, which directly agrees with the evidence of the mate. Then there is the evidence of Erickson, the helmsman, who told us that he had been steering a N. by W. course, and that after the two vessels were reported the master ordered him to keep the sails full, and that he altered her course, not a point, as the master said, but only 1/4 of a point to N. 3/4 W., and that after steering on that course for about half an hour he got the order to put the helm hard-a-port, that he did so, that he then saw the schooner on his port bow, and that the collision then occurred. And, lastly, we have the two apprentices, Campbell and Hindmarsh, who told us that they were in the deck-house, taking some coffee, when they heard the master sing out hard-a-port, that they came out at once, and that the collision occurred almost immediately afterwards, which it no doubt would do, if the vessels were only a quarter of a mile from each other when the order to hard-a-port was given, seeing that the one vessel was going 7 knots, the other from 4 1/2 to 5 knots. 

Here, then, we have the master of the "Taunton" directly at issue with the rest of the crew on the most important facts of the case, namely, whether he ported his helm one point when the two vessels were first reported, and whether the "Curlew" was on his starboard or his port bow, when she was within a quarter of a mile of him, and when he put his helm hard-a-port. If, indeed, we believe the helmsman, the helm was ported, not a point, but only a 1/4 of a point, when the two vessels were first reported, and when it is admitted that they were about a point on his starboard bow, so that they would still continue on his starboard bow. Again, if we believe the mate and the look out man, the "Curlew" did not get to windward of him, but remained on his starboard bow until she had approached to within a 1/4 of a mile of them, and until the master gave the order to hard-a-port. And on what ground are we to reject the evidence of the crew, and to accept that of the master? We can see none. The master gave his evidence in a manner which certainly did not inspire us with much confidence. He was asked whether he had not on the same night come into collision with another vessel, and he swore positively that he had not. He was asked if he had not had a collision with a vessel called the "Peggy," of Shoreham, and he said no; but ultimately, on his being asked whether one of the crew of the "Peggy" had not come on board his vessel that night, he admitted that he had, but he said that there had been no collision, for he hadn't done her any damage. It is certainly difficult to understand why one of the crew of the "Peggy" should have got on board his vessel, unless, indeed, he had collided with her. The master certainly did not give his evidence in a straightforward way. 

On the whole, the conclusion to which we have come is, that the master of the "Taunton" has not given us a correct statement of the facts. What, in our opinion, occurred was this: The master of the "Taunton," after these two vessels had been reported on his starboard bow, still kept his vessel close hauled to the wind on the port tack, believing that he would be able to go to windward of them, his own being a clipper ship; finding, however, when he had got to within a ??guarter of a mile of the "Curlew" that he would not be able to weather her, and that, if both vessels continued their respective courses, she would probably strike him amidships, he put his helm hard up to go to leeward of her, but too late to avoid a collision. This, in our opinion, was the true cause of the collision, and will be our answer to the first question which we have been asked. 

Before, however, I proceed to deal with the next question, it may be well to notice some of the arguments which were addressed to us by counsel, with the view of shewing that the collision was due, not to the "Taunton," but to some fault on the part of the "Curlew." And the first with which I will proceed to deal is one raised by Mr. Strachan, who appeared for the owners of the "Taunton, that the evidence showed that the only person on the deck of the "Curlew" at the moment of the collision was the mate, and that he was at the wheel; and he referred to the fact that the only man saved was the mate, and two of the hands, who are admitted to have been below shortly before the collision; and he argued that, if there were four hands on deck, it was very strange that of the watch on deck the mate only should have been saved, and two men from below. But in our opinion there is nothing strange in this; for the watch have their duties to perform on board, and at the moment of the collision their attention would be more especially directed to the performance of those duties, and not to the means by which they might be able to save their lives. On the other hand, the men who come up on deck just at the moment of the collision, having no duties to perform, would very naturally be looking out for the best way of saving their lives. It was also said by Hindmarsh, one of the apprentices on board the "Taunton," that he saw the mate at the "Curlew's" wheel, but no one else on her deck; but that is no proof that there was not any one else there, for Hindmarsh only came out of the deck house just as the two vessels were coming together, and could hardly be in a condition to say who was or who was not on the "Curlew's" deck at the time. It was said, too, that if the master was, as the mate stated, on deck before the collision, it was strange that he had not been saved; but the mate said that he had been jammed by the fall of the foremast, and the fact that Skinner, who followed the mate down the starboard side of the "Curlew's" deck to get to the "Taunton's" bows, did not see the master, is no proof that he was not there. Skinner's attention was no doubt more taken up with saving himself than looking for the master. 

Mr. Strachan also stated that the collision had probably occurred in this way-that the mate of the "Curlew," being at the wheel, and the only person on deck, suddenly saw the "Taunton" right ahead of him, and in a panic put his helm hard up, or to starboard, and thus brought about the collision. But it may be asked, if so, how came the "Taunton" at that time to be right ahead of the "Curlew?" If, as it is admitted, it was the duty of the "Taunton" to give way, she had no business to have been there at all. But there is no pretence for any such suggestion; in our opinion the "Curlew" kept her course close hauled to the wind up to the last, and the collision was brought about by the "Taunton" trying to get to windward of her, and only porting her helm at the last moment, when she found that she could not clear the "Curlew." 

An attempt was also made to shew, from the damage sustained by the "Taunton," that the starboard bow of the "Curlew" must have struck the port bow of the "Taunton," instead of the "Curlew's" starboard bow being struck by the "Taunton's" stem; and Mr. Colvin, the Board of Trade Surveyor, was produced to prove this, and to shew that the "Curlew" must have starboarded her helm, and was therefore to blame for the collision. But whether the "Taunton" struck the "Curlew's" starboard bow with her stem or with her port bow, in our opinion in no way affects the merits of the case. Whether the "Taunton" had come round so far that her stem cleared the "Curlew," and struck her with her port bow, or whether she had not come quite so far round, and her stem struck the starboard bow of the "Curlew," matters not in the smallest degree. In either case, the collision arose from her attempting to cross the "Curlew's" bows, and whether it was a little sooner or a little later, makes no difference; she ought to have got out of the way in time. 

I now proceed to consider the second question upon which our opinion has been asked, namely:-"Whether " such a collision was caused by the wrongful acts and " defaults of Edward Gawne, the mate of the 'Curlew,' " and Thomas Farrell, the master of the 'Taunton,' " (1) in neglecting to comply with article 14 (b) of the " Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, and (2) " in neglecting to keep a proper look out, as required " by Article 24 of the said Regulations." 

And first I should observe that both vessels appear to have been keeping a good look out, for each saw the other at a distance of between 2 and 3 miles off, in ample time to have avoided a collision, had the proper steps been taken. 

As to whether Thomas Farrell, the master of the "Taunton," neglected to comply with Article (b) of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions, admits, in our opinion, of no question. That Article is in these words:- "A ship, which is close hauled on the port tack, shall " keep out of the way of a ship which is close hauled " on the starboard tack." And assuming that the "Taunton" was close hauled on the port tack, as I think we may fairly do, it was her duty to keep out of the way of the "Curlew," which was close hauled on the starboard tack, which she did not do. Mr. Strachan seems to have thought that it was somewhat strange of the "Curlew," if she saw the "Taunton" bearing down upon her, that she did not take some steps to get out of her way, but that is exactly what she was bound not to do. Article 22 is in these words:- " Where by the above rules one of two ships is to keep " out of the way, the other shall keep her course." It was consequently the duty of the "Curlew" to keep her course, and this is what she did do. 

The third question upon which our opinion is asked is,-"Whether every possible effort was made after the " collision to save life." It seems that at first orders were given to get out the "Taunton's" boat, but that the master then ordered them to sound the well, and on finding that there were only 7 1/2 inches of water in it, and finding, as he says, that the "George Andrews" had then come up and lowered her boat, he did not proceed to lower his own boat, deeming it unnecessary to do so. And as Mr. Ingledew, on behalf of the "Curlew," as well as Mr. de Hamel, on behalf of the Board of Trade, have stated that they make no charge against the master for not lowering his boat, seeing that there was another boat already on the spot, the Court need not pursue the subject further. 

Lastly, the Court is asked to say, whether or not the certificate of Thomas Farrell, the master of the "Taunton," should be dealt with. Here is a collision occurring in broad daylight with a vessel which had been seen at a distance of between two and three miles, and in ample time for the "Taunton" to have got out of the way. What the master of the "Taunton" should have done when the two vessels were first reported, was to have ported his helm, so as to have brought them well upon his port bow, and to have shown them the course which he intended to take. Instead of that, however, he tries to get to windward of them; finds at the last moment that he cannot do so, and fearing that, if he continues his course, he will be struck by the "Curlew" amidships, he prefers to put his helm hard up, and to run her down with the result which we have seen, of the total loss of this vessel and her cargo, together with the lives of five of her crew. The assessors are of opinion that this is a very gross case; and they would be willing to punish the master even more severely than I should do. On the whole, however, I think that the certificate of this master should be suspended for the space of nine months, and in that decision the assessors are disposed to concur, but with the intimation that in their opinion the sentence is a lenient one. 

At the request of Mr. Bramwell, the Court agreed to recommend to the Board of Trade that during the suspension of his certificate, the master be allowed a chief mate's certificate; but they refused an application by Mr. de Hamel to condemn him in costs, deeming the suspension of his certificate a sufficient punishment.