CARÁCTER EVOLUTIVO DEL SOFTWARE JACOBSON, Ivar (pág 10) menciona:

In a collision case in 1820 in the Swyn the Judge Lord Stowell pointed out the maritime law before the jury of the Admiralty Court: ’

— If a ship going in her direct course, and with ail the force and velocity that belongs to that course, under all the favourable circumstances of wind and weather, runs a ship down by striking on her side the law is, that the ship so pursuing her course, under such circumstances, is to exculpate herself from a charge of an unlawful aggression: for, at any rate, she is the aggressor in point of fact.

But also:^

that where a light ship comes into collision with a heavy one, the conclusion is against the aggressor: a light ship is more easily diverted from a course that is likely to bring hazard to it; and therefore, being with less difficulty removed from a situation likely to cause hazard to it, a higher degree of responsibility as to taking such measures as may preserve her, attaches to her.

A witness in a case in 1828 stated what was then, and already long before,

3

customary:

If a vessel is going close-hauled to the wind, and another meeting her is going free, the rule at sea is for the vessel meeting her to go to leewaid; and the reason of it is that otherwise the vessel going to windward would lose her position, and could not get in again without another tack, which would be an inconvenience to her, and not to the vessel going free.

The Times, December 5, 1821; "Ibid.;

^ Marsden, 1891, p. 340;

The Court remarked:"’

The ship which has the wind at large may go either to leeward or to windward; but, as a general rule, she ought to expect that the ship which is close-hauled will keep to windward, and therefore she ought to go to leeward, unless it is quite clear that she can go to windward with safety.

These regulations worked fairly well as the relatively slow approach of two sailing- vessels allowed enough time to act appropriately.

So far for to two sailing-ships meeting and crossing their courses. In cases where a steamer met with a sailing-vessel it was generally accepted that the former gave room to the latter because of her greater manoeuvring capability. As a general rule for steamers meeting sailing-vessels in open waters M. Poppelwell, Surveyor, suggested that a steamer should go to windward of a sailing-vessel. The steamer, because of her being independent from wind, had the possibility of turning her head into the wind while it was equally convenient for the sailing-vessel to bear-up and having the wind more at large than before.^ But in cases when a steamer was beating against a gale while the sailing-vessel was running free Commander William Allen, of the Royal Adelaide between Leith and London, recommended that the sailing-vessel should give way to the steamer for the steamer was compelled to keep the bow against the wind for not becoming unmanoeuvrable.*^

Due to the lack of an universally recognised rule for two steamers meeting and passing in coastal and open waters the masters or other persons in charge of the vessel simply adopted their home port rules for that purpose although it was known that the regulations were contradicting each other. This confusion resulted for example in the

Royal William - Tagus collision on 7th November 1837 off the Isle of Wight and the

Thames - Shannon collision in October 1838 off Brighton. In the English Channel it was custom for vessels going down-Channel, going westward, to keep inshore by porting the helm while vessels working out of the River Mersey and the port of Liveipool starboarded the helm in meeting situations.^

Marsden, 1891, p. 340; ^ H.L., 1839(181.), p. 105;

Ibid., p. 88; " Ibid., pp. 41-42;

William Simons, Shipbuilder, wrote an account on 30th January 1836 in the

form of a letter about the collision between the steamer Antelope and the sailing-

vessel Elizabeth to William Martin, the Chairman of the Seaman’s Friend’s Society.

The collision took place 12 days before in the Clyde. The Elizabeth was run down by

the steamer which had lights up. The account of her salvage occupies a few pages before he comes to his suggestions on improving steam navigation. The second of seven concerned the steering wheel which should be slipped in narrow waters and replaced by a tiller “as is now practised on the River Thames;” (?) because many crew members were brought up in the coasting trade where only tillers were in use and do not know how to work a wheel. Valuable time is lost while correcting a mistake.^

2. RULES AND SUGGESTIONS FOR DISPLAYING LIGHTS.

Sailing-ships normally did not carry any lights. If lights were shown at all on steamers they could be of any description. There were no regulations or unwritten mles of how and where to show lights whatsoever in coastal waters, open seas, or rivers with some exemptions for the latter. This changed only with the Admiralty order of 1848.

Without having such rule it could even less be expected to have any regulations for the size, the shape, and the colour of the lantern and the glass or about screening the rays. This was also left to the owners and masters of the vessels or to other people interested and concerned which led to a number of inventions of lanterns for indicating the speed of steamers, their relative positions, and their courses.

The Report on Steam-Vessel Accidents of 1839 contained a letter by Captain F.T. Michell, R.N., in which he stated that during his time of service, some time before this letter (April 1839), the vessels exhibited three lights at night to denote their course: one at the bow or bowsprit-end and two, one above the other, at the gaff-end or stern.^

This arrangement must have been practised some time after 1816, otherwise it had

probably been mentioned in the Instructions of that year. This mode of exhibiting

light signals was far from being as useful as Lord Howe’s signals were as either light Simons, 1836, pp. 12-13;

®H.L., 1839(181.), p. 159;

can only be seen, unless some sails were not set, or both lights only when about abeam of that vessel.

The earliest invention made public through the Society for the Encouragement of Arts, &c. was that of John Hawks, of Duck’s-foot-lane, Upper Thames-street, London, of a revolving light in his letter of June 7, 1826 to the Secretary of the

Society. Initiated by the fatal accident to the steam-packet Comet, which came into

collision with the Ayr in the River Clyde in 1825 with a loss of 62 lives, he wondered

that this incident did not bring in a single suggestion for the improvement of navigation in general. He believed this loss of life attributable to having no light or by showing it from improper places.

His invention consisted of a spindle with two arms connected by cross bars at either end which held the two lanterns. A third bar was connected through a crank to the spindle and two further cranks to the cross bars to keep the globular lanterns in a vertical position to avoid them being shaken about by the wind or the rapidity of their movement. A pulley and rope connected the spindle, which was supposed to be mounted to the chimney or any other vertical bar, to the steam engine. Another advantage would be to colour the stern half of one of the lanterns in a distinguishable colour to indicate the direction the steamer was going. Since sailing-vessels sometimes hoist a triangular light this revolving light would distinguish them from steamers. The Margate steam-packets shewed for the last two years triangular lights as stated in a letter by J. Miller, Secretary to the Margate Steam-packet Company, to John Hawks.’’’ Triangular lights were for example required for steamers on the River Clyde.

There was nothing said to the size of the lanterns or length of the bars but the drawing shows that the arrangement was of considerable size. The full circle or nanowness of the ellipsoid would give a rough indication of the course the vessel was going. Mr. Hawks was given the Large Silver Medal of the Society.

According to John Lane Higgins, Esq., 370 Oxford Street, London, in his letter to the Society on November 27, 1827 the revolving light of Mr. Hawks was not publicly recognised. Mr. Higgins presented another revolving light to the Society developed by himself.

Transactions, Vol. 45 (1827), pp. 136-39;