On September 6, 1831 Colonel Sibthoip, well known as an ultra-Tory,* moved in the House of Commons for appointing a Select Committee to inquire into the prevention
of steam-boat accidents. His request was initiated by the loss of the Rothsay Castle on
17th August 1831, a passenger vessel built for river service but which went out to sea and was lost with 100 lives. Such Committee was appointed to consist of 16 members: with Colonel Sibthorp as Chairman and Aldermen Wood as one of their members. They took minutes of evidence from September 15 to October 7 on 12 days calling 50 witnesses: watermen and lightermen, harbour-masters, captains, &c. The subjects of inquiiy were the steam engine itself, ships’ lights, speed of steam-vessels and its limitation, the wash of steam-boats, accidents to barges and wherries, state of the Pool, surveying of boilers, build and strength of steam-vessels, general survey of steamers, ships’ boats for passenger steamers, &c.
William Brown, Waterman in the Lower Pool, described the general state of the Pool, several collisions between barges and steam-vessels, and witnessed the latter passing within from 20-30ft. from the lighters and barges with a speed of ten or eleven knots.^ He saw up to 100 vessels at any one time between London Bridge and Cuckold’s Point with a fairway never more than 120ft. wide.^ It was not only the swell coming directly from the steamer which sank the barges but also that rebounding from the banks.'* The greatest swell occurred when several, sometimes four, steamers followed close to each other, keeping up a continues swell. To avoid more accidents he would limit their speed between London Bridge and Cuckold’s Point but was unsure about the rate.^ He believed it to be the rule of the river that small vessels should keep out of the way of larger ones. But it was also a mle that steamers get out of the way of other vessels when they come closer than 100 yards.^
' Prouty, 1957, p. 61; ^ H.C., 1831 (335.), p. 46; ^ Ibid., p. 52; " Ibid., p. 50; ^ Ibid., p. 52; ® Ibid., p. 48; 33
Another Lighterman, Thomas Lucy, stated that, because of less speed, these accidents had not occurred with sailing-vessels. He also referred to the higher amount of swell caused by steamers when following close together.^
After a long statement given about several accidents which occurred to the Trinity House barges by steamers William Honeyman, Superintendent to their barges, submitted a list of damages done to them by sailing-vessels and by steamers. There it appeared that from March 1826 to September 1831 31 accidents were registered on account of steam-vessels but 100 accidents were due to sailing-vessels. This gave a somewhat different picture from the accounts of the watermen and lightermen. But the Superintendent also confirmed the general view that the accidents were due to the carelessness of the helmsman,^ that steamers were racing, and went through the Pool at too great a speed.^ Such should be limited above Gravesend and steamers should not follow within a distance of less than half a mile.***
William Lewis Newman, Solicitor of the Corporation of London, became aware of the complaints about the speed of steamers in 1823 or 1824.** He despatched a public notice to the owners and masters of steam-vessels in 1824 and believed that they did obey them for he heard of no further complaints until 1829 (was he ill-informed ?) when he renewed the notice. But this was ignored by all of them but one. The continuance and increase of the number of complaints caused Mr. Newman to place persons on those steamers who, in 1831, collected a great deal of evidence sufficient for prosecution as ordered by the chief magistrate. But it seemed from his evidence that he did not prosecute any of them yet because it involved several acts of the common law regai'ding offences on a King’s highway. It remained a question if the Act of 1827*^ regulating the Watermen’s Company did apply to persons not being of the Watermen’s Company, which were those who plied beyond their jurisdiction from Windsor to Yantlet Creek, for example to Ramsgate
I H.C., 1831 (335.),p.23;
Ibid., p. 38; ^ Ibid., p. 39; Ibid., p. 40; Ibid., p. 71;
7 & 8 Geo. IV., Cap. Ixxv. An Act for the better Regulation of the Watermen and Lightermen on
the River Thames, between Yantlet Creek and Windsor. (14th June 1827.];
and Margate. Mr. Newman’s opinion was that these vessels did not come under the
Act.*^
But the issue was wider. The principal question was if the Company was allowed to make bye-laws which enabled them to punish those who went beyond the said limits. The case was thus: the Act of Parliament allowed the watermen’s bye-laws to be applicable to freemen only. But if a non-freeman violated a bye-law the Act itself would bear upon him which said that none but freeman shall ply on the river. If the non-freeman would be under the bye-law it would be a question if the bye-law was sufficient. The only solution would be to pass an Act of Parliament which was applicable to every steamer and overruled the watermen’s bye-laws. Racing and following close to each other should also be forbidden by law.
Kennet Beauchamp Martin, Commander of The City of London steam-packet
and Harbour-master of Ramsgate during the winter, thought such an Act would be an improvement provided that the speed limit did not go below six knots but in general would keep the steam-vessels out of the Pool.*'*
As to lights Joseph Beardmore, Engineer “to the Company”, spoke about three or four lights which were exhibited at the mast-head, bowsprit, and paddle-boxes of their vessels.*^ Captain Martin displayed one light at the mast-head and one at each paddle-box. The mast-head light was closed at the back in order not to blind the look out. He was ordered by the owner of his steamer to carry lights but it was left to him where to fix them.*^ The suggestion by the Committee members of having three horizontal lights on the yard-arm of vessels going down-river and three perpendicular lights for vessels going up-river, and accordingly for going north and south along the coast, would be, in his opinion, useful, in fact the form of lights was of no importance to him as long as the regulation was generally recognised and adopted.*^
Also John Fisher, principal Harbour-master of the Port of London, was in favour of a regulation for lights. Some steamers already carried a light at the bows which told if
H.C., 1831 (335.), p. 72; it was the bye-law of 15th April 1828, clause (42.); see chapter on Thames Navigation Before 1832;
Ibid., p. 73; for further discussion of this subject see chapter on Thames Navigation Before 1839;
Ibid., p. 11; Ibid., p. 17; Ibid., p. 20;
they were going the same direction or were bearing on them because it would be either obstructed by the hull or show clearly.*^
The exhibition of lights was entirely left to the convenience of owners and masters of steam-vessels and to the willingness of the former to pay expenses for oil. The lack of having at least one recognised rule for steamers under way and another one for vessels at anchor led to incredible confusion. A bright all-round light hanging in the foremast stays, on the yard-ann, or mounted at the mast-head gave no indication at all of the direction the vessel was going. It shewed only that there was one in the vicinity. The lighted deck or superstmcture might have told something if the light was strong enough. Hanging the light or lights under the bows or under the end of the bowsprit did give some kind of information to other vessels because it was invisible from the quarters of that particular vessel but their position in front of the look-out stationed in the bow blinded his view. The system of lights as suggested by the Commissioners with reference to the direction the vessel was going (up or down-river and going north or south along the coast) rather than to her nature, her size, the action she was going to take, &c. was rather strange for today’s measures but was a relatively well thought-out attempt to bring some order and system into the main traffic routes. But it did not affect the busy English Channel and open waters.
There was only one remark concerning the mode of two steam-vessels passing
each other in the Thames. It was made by Captain Martin of The City of London
steamer, describing it as a “rule” that the steamers sailing against the tide kept to that side of the river where the tide was weakest. The other vessel went with the strength of the tide and passed the oncoming vessel at its open side. Whereby the one vessel constantly changed the side of the river. This would be the rule during daylight, there was no such rale for the night and the masters or commanders were therefore completely dependent on lights.*^
Captain Basil Hall, R.N., was examined particularly about the way American steam-vessels were steered. Referring to the build especially of river steamers on the Mississippi he described the wheel-house as sitting high above the waterline and therefore as far forward as possible in order to have a good view before and around the bow. For ease of detecting the vessel answering its helm a little bowsprit with a
H.C., 1831 (335.), p. 32; Ibid., p. 20;
An 1858 wood engraving of a Mississippi steamer as described by Captain Basil Hall, R.N., in the Report on Steam Navigation. The spar with globe can clearly be seen at the bow of the vessel.
mast and spar or globe was erected at the stem.^** He recommended this system for the English river steamers but it would need a scaffolding on the fo’c’sle to bring the helmsman high up over the bow. For sea puiposes the usual position aft could be occupied.^* There should be also another system adopted here which was already introduced in steamers on the River Tay sailing between Perth and Dundee. The engine was directly controlled by means of an instrument formed of a dial and handle invented by Messrs. Carmichael of Dundee. The loss of time through mis understanding commands, or reacting slowly to them would be so avoided.^^ Asked for a way to avoid accidents in the Pool Mr. Hall could not recollect any accidents of steam-boats which could be prevented by legislation.^^ He objected to the lighting system as suggested by the Committee because he saw accidents happen due to showing more than one light.^'*
The inventor of a revolving light, John Lane Higgins, was also examined. Having described it^^ he thought of using it as an indicator for speed of steam-vessels by letting it revolve in the same rate as the w h e e l s , I t would also tell other boats coming along-side if the wheels were stopped when they could not be seen in the dark. He had already shown this engine to the Elder Brethren of the Trinity House, London who were unable to enforce its adoption. The harbour-masters and the only captain asked supported the idea. The revolving light was not supposed to give an indication of the course to other vessels. The intention was to give an indication of motion which cannot be achieved with stationary lights.
But a vessel moving round another vessel’s bow so equipped from right a-head into a position abeam would see the light’s full circle changing into an ellipsoid and finally to an up and down movement and therewith gave some indication of its relative course and position.
H.C., 1831 (335.), p. 26;
This arrangement was also discussed in several articles and letters to the editor of The Times: for
example; August 23, 1831; December 9, December 15, December 26, 1835, September 13, 1837; Ibid., p. 28;
Ibid., p. 29; ^Ibid., p. 31;
See chapter on Modes of Exhibiting Lights Before 1841 ;
^ To the subject of revolutions of the wheel as measure for speed see chapter on Report on Port of London, 1836: Sir John Hall’s and Captain Frederick Bullock’s statements;
^’ H.C., 1831 (335.), pp. 61-62;
An important statement towards the fining of steamer’s commanders was made by Sir John Hall, Secretary of St. Katherine’s Dock Company. Although the Harbour masters Act of 1829^^ was also passed (clause (IV.)) “to direct the entering, mooring, unmooring, moving, and removing of all Ships and other Vessels, Steam Boats, Lighters, and Craft, except those of the said Corporation of the Trinity House”, it was often impossible for the harbour-masters to enforce the bye-laws of August 1829. The
fine of up to 5L for every hour refusing to obey their orders shall be recovered from
the owner (clause (IX.)). Other persons in charge or command of the ship were not mentioned but the owner might not be in reach of the Act. Clause (XHI.) shall regulate, beside other things, “the more safe and convenient navigating, placing,
mooring, unmooring, and removing of Ships and other Vessels on the River Thames
in and near the said Port,. . . and for the better governing and regulating of all Masters of Vessels, Pilots, Lightermen, and others within the said Port” The words ‘Steam Boats’ were here omitted. This should be subject of an amendment to the Act.^^
Sir John Hall made another point by referring to his system of mooring vessels in tiers, a proposal which he submitted to the Corporation of the City of London in 1826 and the Society for the Encouragement of Arts, &c. during the session 1828-29: two parallel mooring chains, each 350ft. long, with bridles and buoys every 50ft. were laid on the river bed 220ft. apart. To each pair of opposing boys were moored two vessels as a pair, head to stern, the ropes of both ends of a different length. Each pair of vessels was set in that manner that every vessel was left with at least two thirds of its length of one side open to the river for loading and unloading. 14 vessels of an average size of 250 register tons could be so moored with a considerable amount of space saved. The Corporation of London was in favour of this suggestion but its Navigation Committee was mainly composed of incompetent persons without any practical knowledge of shipping or the River Thames.^**
Sir John Hall was further of the opinion that the speed of steam-vessels should be regulated after they passed Greenwich, The Lord Mayor put out such proclamation on
^ 10 Geo. IV., Cap. cxxiv. An Act for altering and amending the Powers of an Act of the
Thirty-ninth Year of the Reign of King George the Third, for rendering more commodious and for
better regulating the Port of London. [19th June 1829.] ; B.C., 1831 (335.), p. 112;
Ibid., p. 113; see chapter on Thames Navigation Before 1832;
24th June 1830 but had no power to enforce it.^* As regards passing vessels he recommended that the Legislative should not interfere but that there should be a mutual understanding between the masters and owners that the vessels going with the tide should keep in the strength of the tide while those going against it should hug the shore to keep in the eddies, also that accidents might be prevented by both porting or starboarding the helm instead of one porting and the other starboarding it.^^
The Select Committee agreed the text of their Report of just three and one half pages on October 14, 1831. The members had to find, as they thought, a compromise between “on the one hand, not to check, by Legislative interference, the progress of Improvement in the application of the vast Power of Steam to Naval Puiposes, as, on the other hand, to afford Protection to the Lives and Property of His Majesty’s Subjects, and to ensure a due regard to the security and protection of all public and private interests”. They came finally to the conclusion that certain regulations should be made. Referring to two recent major steam-vessel accidents they were nevertheless of the opinion that the number of fatal accidents was comparatively low to those with sailing-vessels.^^
The Committee summed up the evidence into five statements: that the now daily personnel risk for people in small boats was caused by the rapidity of passing of steamers through the Pool; that every reasonable precaution should be adopted by steamers passing small craft closer than necessary; that sea-going as well as river- going passenger steamers seemed not to be built with sufficient strength of scantling; that there was no fixed rule for night signals for steamers; they should be so distinguished to give other vessels timely notice of their approach; that the starting of several steamers from the same point at the same time causes great inconvenience to small craft due to undulation;^'*
To overcome these points the Committee made nine suggestions: (l.)to regulate the speed between London Bridge and the Stairs of H.M. Victualling-yard at Deptford through the revolutions of the paddle-wheel; (2.) that it shall be enacted that the number of revolutions of the wheel shall be halved between London Bridge and
H.C., 1831 (335.); for reasons see above; Ibid., p. 114;
Ibid., p. 3; Ibid., pp. 3-4;
Deptford when going with the tide or in slack water and reduced to two thirds when going against the tide, the measure being the average performance of the wheel at full speed; this shall be registered at the Commissioners of Customs of the port of registry and painted on a prominent part of the vessel; for vessels navigating the Thames an index shall be mounted on the deck connected to the engine for showing the revolutions per minute of the wheel; (3.) that sea-going and river-going passenger steam-vessels shall be regularly surveyed and examined for sea-worthiness, scantling, and fitting and afterwards licensed; (4.) that the licences shall be granted for one year only and be renewed after any accident had occurred; (5.) that the number of