On 30th October 1840 the Trinity House, London published two rules concerning steering orders for avoiding collisions between steam-vessels.' The preamble explained the rules as “indispensably necessary” to avoid further calamities involving steam-vessels and referred to the already well established rules for sailing-vessels which were that sailing-ships with the wind free give way to those sailing to windward, that sailing-ships on the larboard tack give way to those on the starboard tack so that they pass on each other’s larboard side, and that if two sailing-vessels have the wind at large or abeam and meet they shall pass on the larboard side of each other by both porting their helm. The third rule was not established but a simple development from the second. Because steam-vessels could be considered in their manoeuvring ability as sailing-vessels with the wind free they should keep clear of sailing-vessels. Consequently there were only rules left to be made for two steamers meeting: in open waters both steamers shall port their helms so as to pass at each other’s larboard side if they passed so near that a collision would occur if the steamers held on to their courses; in narrow channels steamers shall pass at each other’s larboard side. The rules were signed by the Secretary J. Herbert^ and subsequently published in all their books.^ They were already practised since 1839 by the Admiralty and H.M. Steam-vessels."'
There was an important difference to the Admiralty regulation and also to Lord Howe’s rule. In both it was laid down that the vessels shall pass at the other’s larboard side but it was left to the commanding persons to decide what action should be taken.^ This new Trinity House order made compulsory that in any case both vessels shall alter their course.
The London Gazette, November 3, 1840, pp. 2410-11 ;
^ Kemp, J.F., 1973, p. 19;
^ Captain Edward Chappell, R.N.; B.C., 1843 (549.), p. 53;
^ See chapter on Regulations for Rivers and Open Waters Before 1840;
^ Kemp, J.F., 1973, p. 18; see also chapter on Steering Regulations before 1840;
Both regulations, that of the Admiralty and of the Trinity House, caused many collisions as they were contradictory to the long established and widest spread custom of starboarding the helm to pass at each other’s starboard side as it was done on the River Clyde, River Tay, River Humber,^ River Mersey, and the Irish Channel^ and in coastal waters by vessels of these home waters. But to avoid legal actions for damage in the Mersey the established rule, derived from the traffic rule of roads and city streets where vehicles passed each other in that manner^, was abandoned and the port to port passing rule of the Trinity House had to be adopted.
This compulsory order that both vessels had to alter course in order to pass port to port in open waters was later known as the port-helm rule. It might mean to divert from a perfectly safe course, or a course which would need only a slight alteration of the helm, but would not necessarily lead to a passing in the required way, to such which would cross the path of the other vessel only for the sake of fulfilling the legal requirements. This led only to additional and unnecessary confusion and collisions.^
This Trinity House, London regulation did not have the legal power of a Parliamentary Act or law but it was recognised by the Courts and had therefore a strong appeal to the captains, masters, and persons in charge of the vessel."' These rules can therefore be called the first national steering regulations.
There were no such rules suggested for lighting steamers and/or sailing- vessels. This was the point “Mercator” made in April 1841 in the Nautical Magazine and Naval Chronicle. He commented on this set of rules of October 1840 as being only half of what should have been done and mentioned several collisions as practical examples where the lack of a mle for lights was the cause.
It has required the collective wisdom of that useful body of gentlemen on Tower Hill, to witness about a quarter of a century of continual accidents amongst steamers, before they
^ At the time of signing the Trinity House order. This was changed shortly afterwards with a new order
by the Trinity House, Hull of 25th November 1840; see also chapter on Local Regulations; ^ The Mersey, Irish Channel, or Channel were often synonyms for each other;
^ The Nautical Magazine and Naval Chronicle, For 1841, (Vol. V), p. 340;
^ This rule was reduced to “shall pass as far as may be safe on the Port Side of such other Vessel” in the Steam Navigation Act of 1846. The port-helm rule was again introduced into “The Steam Navigation Act, 1851.” and consequently controversially discussed in papers, pamphlets, and Select Committee inquiries. Masters and commanders rather went straight for a collision and did not consider to depart from the rule to be not found guilty before the Court as such departure could, due to confusion, result in an accident. The port-helm rule was finally repealed with the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1863; see also chapter on Report on Shipwrecks, 1843;
Kemp, J.F., 1973, p. 19;
could bestir themselves to do what common sense has been calling so loudly for, viz. the establishment of the rule in question,— and probably, after another lapse of years shall have doubled these dreadful losses, it may be found out, that in fact without going further, and insisting upon the proper lighting of these vessels, the rule now promulgated, has accomplished more harm than good !
Mercator suggested a triangle of lights with a pale light at the foremost crosstrees, another at the larboard paddle-box, and a deep red light at the starboard paddle-box. This was exactly the opposite of that practised by the City of Dublin Steam-packet Company, Liverpool. He also objected to the carrying of sails by steamers in English waters because of the greatly increased speed and consequent loss of manoeuvrability."
The editor of the journal added another paragraph under Mercator’s letter quoting a
correspondent of the Hants Telegraph. His suggestion was that steamers shall by an
international understanding be compelled to go under the sailing-vessel’s stern. To assure that this rule was obeyed the insurance should be affected if an accident occurred because of the neglect to do so.'^
Mercator got an angrily written reply from J.C. Shaw, Engineer and Manager to the City of Dublin Steam-packet Company, accusing him of confusion regarding his suggestion of displaying lights on the paddle-boxes. He wrote about the Trinity House regulation:
It has always appeared to me as something very strange, that the East Coast folks are
apparently quite ignorant of what is doing on the West Coast.—Is it ignorance ? Is it jealousy
of the application of inventions ?— [ ...] No rule o f any kind has existed on the East Coast.
All at once “the body of gentleman on Tower-Hill,” as the Elder Brethren of the Trinity House, are described by Mercator, drew up a series of nautical arrangements, and
recommended that steamers should port their helms.
J.C. Shaw expressed his anger and disappointment clearly in the letter. But he was ill-informed himself as there were several east coast regulations which were also contradictory to the Trinity House code.
On 25th February 1841 Viscount Sandon addressed the President of the Board of Trade, Henry Labouchere, in the House of Commons and referred to the numerous loss of life on the seas as result of the absence of a rule regarding steamers how and on “ The Nautical Magazine and Naval Chronicle, For 1841, (Vol. V), pp. 272-73;
Ibid., p. 273; Ibid., p. 340;
which side to pass when they meet. He asked if the Government intended to introduce such rules.
The President answered that he already had paid attention to the idea of legislative interference but after discussion “with certain individuals whose authority he considered was of great weight,” he realised that they strongly opposed such action. The regulations recently made by the Trinity House and enforced for their own vessels were adopted by the Admiralty and Government steamers and, after circulation, also by merchant steamers. The rules for sailing-vessels and also coaches and vehicles all relied on custom. But a court of law would surely prosecute with heavy penalties any breach of these regulations. Foreign steamers coming into British waters should adopt the Trinity House, London rules but so far there was no communication undertaken with foreign countries.'"'
Viscount Sandon must have meant that there was no law as there was a rule,
although optional, recognised in the Courts. Mr. Labouchere was wrong in his statement that the Trinity House had written up the code for their own vessels which was then adopted by the Admiralty and eventually by the merchant marine. In fact, these rules were made entirely for merchant vessels for they were already practised by the Admiralty from whose orders they were derived. This last point was not crucial but it shewed, after all the years of total ignorance of the importance of any steam- vessel regulations, the grasp the politicians had of the subject they were talking about.
The Times printed a letter of “Philo-Nauticus” who wrote a long general statement on the causes of collisions through the want of lights, the unseaworthyness of vessels, and the drunkenness and carelessness of their masters as well as on the reluctance of the Admiralty as being “too passively Conservative a body, contenting itself merely with a drag-chain like prevention of precipitate changes, to take the initiative in any such remedial measure”. He recommended the use of the steam- whistle as a warning signal and his own suggestion of displaying three all-round lights hung from the fore-mast in a triangle in a fore-and-aft line. The bright light shall be at the top with the red light facing the stem and the pale green light facing the stern. This should tell the vessel’s course in an instant. He also referred to the problems of both vessels following the starboard or port-helm rule to avoid collisions:'^
Hansard, Third Series, Vol. LVI, col. 1020-21;
The Times, December 8, 1842;
I will just remark, in conclusion, that the rule of two passing vessels respectively porting the helm, or starboarding the helm, the first enforced in the Tyne, and the latter enjoined by the Hull Trinity-house, are by no means adequate to prevent collision under all circumstances. If two meeting vessels each port or each starboard their helms, having time and space for the operation to take effect, they being moreover stem on, their heads will move off in different directions, and a collision will be avoided; but a seaman can understand how, by being placed a very few yards to the larboard or starboard of each other, they may, by the same operation of the helm, be brought into collision.
This passage of his article made exactly the point in 1842 about the port-helm-rule which was endlessly discussed especially after 1851 before it was finally dropped in 1863. But his light arrangement had not worked at all simply because the lights were globular lights and had hung too close to each other. They had appeared as one light and over-powered each other.
A letter by E.K. Calver suggested an Act of Parliament which made compulsory for steamers a light at the hounds of the foremast and another at the bows. His diagram explained that the horizontal distance between the two lights would indicate the course of the steamer and the relative position to each other. Vessels at anchor should show one light, those (sailing-vessels ?) under way should show two horizontally. Foreign countries should adopt the British regulations.*^
As long as there was no ratio of horizontal and vertical distances set out this arrangement would hardly tell anything, as little as just two horizontal lights would.
According to Vice-Admiral P.H. Colomb's summary history of the Rule of the Road and the Report on Mr. Rettie’s lanterns by Admiral Charles Ogle, Messrs. Chapman and Company circulated the “Explanatory Cases printed for the Use of the Commanders in the Employ of Messrs. Chapman & Company”, issued by the Admiralty with an order of 23rd July 1845 and known as “Chapman’s Rules”. It contained in a summarising form the existing rules and proposed another new rule that sailing-ships running free shall carry a single light at each bow and those by the wind shall exhibit one light at the starboard bow and two lights at the port bow to
distinguish them from steamers with their single mast-head light. The Nautical
Magazine and Naval Chronicle, For 1851 quoted a slightly different rule:*^
The Nautical Magazine and Naval Chronicle, For 1843, (Vol. VII), pp. 731-32;
H.C. and H.L., 1895 [C .-7908.-I.], p. 278; H.C., 1846 (568,), p. 2;
The Nautical Magazine and Naval Chronicle, For 1851, (Vol. XV), p. 597;
CITIZEN MERCER A, generally known as CITIZEN A.—Paddle steamer built for the City Steamboat Co. in 1845 by Ditchburn & Mare at Blackwall. On dimensions 94 feet by 13 by 6 feet depth of hold she had a gross tonnage of 61, and like all the Citizen boats had a good turn of speed. In the middle ‘eighties she was renamed Azalea by the River Thames Steamboat Co. and subsequently she became one of Arnold Hill’s famous teetotal and vegetarian fleet of pleasure steamers, running under the name of the Thames Steamboat Co. She was broken up early in 1908.
(a) Starboard view under steam, off Chelsea. Lithograph 10 1/8 by 16. Inscribed:— ’’Drawn from
nature and on Stone by J. C. Ogle.”— ’’Printed by M. & N. Hanhart.”— ’’The Steamboat Citizen
M ercer A."— ”in Commemoration of the 1st of Augt.”— ’’This Proof is respectfully Dedicated to the Company by their Obedient Humble Servant J. C. Ogle.” “London. Published 1st Jany, 1848 by Rowney, Dillon & Co., 51 Rathbone Place.”