such light. A vessel aground in or near a fairway shall carry the above light or lights and the two red lights prescribed by art. (a)

17. Preliminary. Risk of collision can, when circumstances permit, be ascertained by carefully watching the compass bearing of an approaching vessel. If the bearing does not appreciably change, such risk should be deemed to exist.

19. When two steam vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way of the other.

23. Every steam vessel which is directed by these rules to keep out of the way of another vessel shall, on approaching her, if necessary, slacken her speed or stop

or reverse.

27. In obeying and construing these rules, due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision, and to any special circumstances which may render a departure from the above rules necessary in order to avoid immediate danger.

28. . . When vessels are in sight of one another, a steam vessel under way, in taking any course authorised or required by these rules, shall indicate that course by the following signals on her whistle or siren -viz.,. three short blasts to mean, "My engines are going full speed astern."

29. Nothing in these rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, or master, or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to carry lights or signals, or of any neglect to keep a proper look-out, or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.

Aspinall, K.C., Horridge, K C., and A. D. Bateson appeared for the plaintiffs.

Cohen, K.C., Laing, K.C., and Dunlop appeared for the defendants.

July 2, 1906.-The PRESIDENT.-This is a case of collision which took place on the 24th Dec. 1905, at about 4.45 in the morning, in Monte Video Harbour Outer Roads, between the steamship Canning and the steamship Bellanoch. The Canning is a large steamer of 5366 tons gross register, and was leaving Monte Video Harbour to proceed on her voyage to Buenos Ayres. She was drawing 19ft. 1lin. forward and 19ft. 7in. aft, so she was not quite so much hampered by the shallow depth of water there as the other vessel, the Bellanoch, was. The case on the part of the Canning is that the Bellanoch was heading across the channel to the eastward, a channel which, I understand, was a dredged channel through the shallow water for the purpose of enabling deep-drafted vessels. to leave the port, and it is said she was heading across the channel in that way, some distance off, and that the Canning kept on down the channel until she passed certain buoys which mark it, and that then she ported her helm to pass astern of the Bellanoch, and, while she was swinging under her port helm, the Bellanoch came astern and thus produced the collision, not withstanding what the other vessel did to avoid it.

The defendants' vessel, the Bellanoch, is also a large vessel of 2637 tons gross. She was bound from Monte Video to Antwerp, and she had been hampered by the mud, I think, more or less to the westward of the extension, and was endeavouring to get to sea and to make her way into the channel, and her case is that she was proceeding, shortly before this collision happened, under a hard-a-port helm, with her engines working full speed ahead and her stern dragging in the

mud, heading about east by south or east half south, and that, although she had occasionally been going astern with her engines, the plaintiffs say she was, in fact, going ahead and dragging slowly through the water. The issue, therefore, is a very simple one to state, but perhaps it is not so easy to determine which story is true about this particular point. I notice that the defendants' vessel, the Bellanoch, was drawing 24ft. 6in. aft and 20ft. 4in. forward, and had been endeavouring, obviously,. from the evidence which was given in this case by her engineer, which is confirmed to-day by the master, to do what I have already stated -namely, move ahead from where she had been. I think that she had been originally at anchor with the object of getting to the eastward and so into deeper water. I do not propose to read the entries in the log-book; they all seem to me to go directly to the point, and, having regard to the evidence which I have heard on a previous occasion and to-day, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion, after seeing the witnesses, that it practically disposes of this case; it is a conclusion of fact pure and simple that the case of the plaintiffs is not made out, and that the case of the defendants is made out that they were going ahead and were not going astern.

This collision was not produced as the plaintiffs say. It may be perfectly true that it is a remarkable thing that the master of this large, fine vessel, the Canning, did not port enough to clear the vessel which was in front of him and broadside on to him, and, according to my view, going very slowly ahead. The only possible explanation which we meet with so frequently in this court is that sometimes sailors shave things too fine. I do not think that the master allowed enough room, and, if I remember rightly, there was a suggestion made which has some weight with the Elder Brethren in this case-namely, that he did not port enough because, probably, he had not allowed enough room having regard to the possibility of the current setting across his course, and therefore preventing him from sufficiently clearing the stern of the Bellanoch. This broad fact really disposes of the case on the merits entirely, but there are two or three, I think, in this case, I may say, highly technical points which are raised with considerable ingenuity by counsel for the plaintiffs with the view, not of preventing their own ship from being found to blame, but with a view to also making the defendants' ship to blame, because he contends that the Bellanoch has committed a breach of art. 4 and art. 11 of the Collision Regulations. Art. provides that "a vessel which from any accident is not under command" shall exhibit certain lights or certain shapes according as it is before or after sunrise, and that this vessel was, from some accident, not under command. That seems to me to be a question partly of the construction of the article and partly a question of fact. This vessel, according to the view the Elder Brethren take, was under command; she was moving, and capable of doing what she wanted to do, and had in the course of three-quarters of an hour moved three-quarters of a mile; she was only hampered by the fact that she was dragging through the mud. And then, again, it is not necessary in this case that I should say anything definite about it, but, at any rate, it seems to me

doubtful whether she was "from any accident' not under command. With regard to art. 11, the only part of that article which is material is the last sentence: "A vessel aground in or near a fairway shall carry the above light or lights and the two red lights prescribed in art. 4 (a)."

I am of opinion, as a matter of fact, that this does not apply to a vessel which is not aground, and that also is the view of the Elder Brethren. According to my view of this case, neither art. 4 nor art. 11 applies, and there is this bread answer to any technical points of this kind—that the witnesses from the plaintiffs' ship said that if there had been lights up they could not have seen them because it was broad daylight; they might have seen the lanterns, and what they did see was the ship herself as plain as if the sun were up and it was broad daylight, and they could see everything this ship was doing. Therefore, although it is not necessary to go into it in this case, I cannot myself see that these articles have anything to do with the matter, or have anything in them which could by possibility affect the case in any way.

The last point is that under art. 28 the Bellanoch ought to have given three short blasts with her whistle. The point is connected with the possible suggestion that she was not keeping her course and speed. I think that, under the circumstances, she was doing so; she was doing all that she could to keep her course and speed in compliance with the provisions of the article; she was going ahead as fast as ever she could, but reversing at times, not with the object of going astern; her whole object was to get ahead, to get into deeper water and to go ahead; what she was reversing for, according to her captain, was to clear her propeller and to assist to get the vessel to answer her helm. If that was relied on, though I hardly think that it was suggested, there is practically nothing in it; and it was not a breach of the article which required her to keep her course and speed.

But it is said that on the two or three occasions on which she reversed with the object indicated she did not give three short blasts, and she therefore committed a breach of art. 28. Here, again, it is a highly technical point, and quite against any merits when once the decision is arrived at that the vessel did not go astern, or even if it could be said that there was a breach of the article unless there were something to qualify it, it would have had, as a matter of common sense, another article to control it, and that article is this art. 27: "In obeying and construing these rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision, and to any special circumstances which may render a departure from the above rules necessary in order to avoid immediate danger." What would have happened if she had indicated by her whistle, three short blasts, that she was going astern ? She would have invited the other vessel to go ahead of her, and that might have misled the other vessel most completely if, after that, she had tried to keep her course and speed and go ahead, and the other vessel had said, "You gave three short blasts that you were going astern," then the Bellanoch would have been in very considerable difficulty. The answer is that using the signal in this particular way in these particular circumstances would have been most misleading and when the other vessel could see

everything that was being done, there is really nothing in that point which has any weight at all, and I venture to say that there is no force in the technical points throughout. The result is that this case must be determined by holding that the Canning is alone to blame for this collision.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Aspinall, K.C., Horridge, K.C. and A. D. Bateson for the appellants, the owners of the Canning.-The Bellanoch was solely to blame, or was also to blame, as she came astern and failed to give the appropriate signal under art. 28, and so did not give the Canning any warning of what she was doing. The Bellanoch raised her anchor at 3.47 a.m., an hour before the collision and before sunrise, so the rules as to lights applied. She was drawing 24ft. 6in. aft, and was 4tt. 2in. by the stern. The depth of water there was only 22ft. 6in., so her stern was dragging through the mud, and she was then not under command and should have exhibited the two red lights:

The P. Caland, 68 L. T. Rep. 469; 7 Asp. Mar.
Law Cas. 317; (1893) A. C. 207.

66

As the Canning approached the Bellanoch, those on her hailed the latter, Why don't you go ahead?" and received the answer, "I am going ahead all I can. I can do no more; my ship is on the ground." The Bellanoch ought therefore to have complied with art. 11, for she was aground in or near a fairway. The log of the Bellanoch shows that she was going astern on her engines on three separate occasions-from 4.20 to 4.24, from 4.28 to 4.34, from 4.37 to 4.40. On none of those occasions did she sound a three-blast signal as required by art. 28 :

The Uskmoor, 87 L. T. Rep. 55; 9 Asp. Mar. Law
Cas. 316; (1902) P. 250.

That duty is cast on her whether she is keeping her course and speed under art. 21, or departing from that rule under special circumstances under arts. 27 and 29. The failure to give that warning caused the collision, for the Canning has been held to blame for not giving the Bellanoch a wider berth. If there had been a whistle signal, the Canning would or might have ported sooner and reduced her speed.

Cohen, K.C., Laing, K.C., and Dunlop for the respondents, the owners of the Bellanoch.-Art. 4 has no application to the Bellanoch; the only thing that was the matter was that she could only proceed very slowly. Art. 11 has no application; the vessel was not aground within the meaning of that article. Art. 28 applies to a course authorised by rules for avoiding collision. The Bellanoch was moving ahead without reference to other vessels, there being no risk of collision; so the fact that she sounded no whistle violated no rule, and, in fact, her engines were not put astern for five minutes before the collision, which was the only time during which the Canning was manoeuvring for her. Even if The Uskmoor (ubi sup.) applies to good seamanship, that case has no application, for the Bellanoch was not taking a course authorised or required by the rules:

The Mourne, 83 L. T. Rep. 748; 9 Asp. Mar. Law
Cas. 155; (1901) P. 68.

The only question in the case is one of factnamely, Did the Canning port too late? and it has been held that she did.

Horridge, K.C. in reply.-Those on the Bellanoch knew that it was the duty of the Canning to keep out of the way. They should have let her know what they were doing; they were altering their speed, and should have given the Canning warning of that. The absence of the whistle signal cannot be said by no possibility to have contributed to the collision:

The Fanny M. Carvill, 32 L. T. Rep. 646; 2 Asp.
Mar. Law Cas. 565 (1875); 13 App. Cas. 455n. ;
The Duke of Buccleuch, 65 L. T. Rep. 422; 7 Asp.
Mar. Law Cas. 68; (1891) A. C. 310.

S.,

March 18, 1907.-Lord ALVERSTONE, C.J.This is an appeal in a case of collision which occurred in the Bay of Monte Video, a few minutes before sunrise, on the 24th Dec. 1905, between the Bellanoch and the Canning. The Canning, which had been at anchor north of the break water, had rounded under her port helm and passed down, just outside the breakwater, making a straight course about S. by W. to the two buoys which are to the southward of the breakwater at a distance of about half a mile. The Bellanoch, a large vessel belonging to Lamport and Holt, had been at anchor about three quarters of a mile to a mile to the westward of the buoys, and was, just before the collision, proceeding on a course about E. roughly speaking at right angles to the course of the Canning down the channel. The Canning continued her course straight down to the buoys, and, after passing between them, ported her helm with a view to pass under the stern of the Bellanoch, which was still heading to the eastward, the Canning being at that time at a distance of about a quarter of a mile from the Bellanoch; and her case is that on seeing that the Bellanoch was coming astern the Canning's engines were reversed full speed, her helm being kept hard-a-port. The collision happened by the stem of the Canning hitting the port side of the Bellanoch about 40ft. forward of her stern. Under these circumstances the President found the Canning alone to blame, and I am clearly of opinion that she was to blame, on the ground that she ported too late, and maintained her speed far too long, not having room to clear the Bellanoch under her hard-a-port helm at the rate of speed at which she was going.

The real difficulty of the case is with regard to the manœuvres of the Bellanoch. Her case was that, drawing 20ft. 4in. forward and 24ft. 6in. aft, she had been dragging through the mud at a speed over the ground of about three-quarters of a mile to a mile an hour; that she had moved her engines ahead and astern, going astern to clear her propeller out of the mud. The collision happened, according to the time of both ships, at 4.45. The movements of the engines of the Bellanoch, according to her deck log and the log kept by the engineer, were as follows: 3.54 a.m. full speed ahead on the engines; 4.20 full astern; 4 24 full ahead; 4.28 full astern; 4.34 full ahead; 4.36 stopped; 4.37 full astern; 4.40 full ahead. It will be noted that during the seventeen minutes immediately preceding the collision-that is to say, from 4.28 to 4.45, her engines went full speed astern twice, namely, for a period of six minutes, from 4.28 to 4.34, and for a period of three minutes from 4.37 to 4.40. It was admitted that she gave no signal by whistle that her engines

were going full speed astern, in accordance with art. 28 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, and it was strenuously contended, on behalf of the Canning, that her neglect to give these signals was a breach of rule 28, and that the Bellanoch had not proved that such a breach could not possibly have affected the collision. The learned President decided this point in favour of the Bellanoch, and went further, holding that to have given the signal might have misled the Canning.

The case is, in my opinion, by no means free from difficulty, but before deciding as to the application of the rules to the circumstances of the case, it is, in my judgment, necessary to determine clearly at what point in the navigation of these two vessels they became liable to obey the rules, or when, in other words, they were approaching so as to involve risk of collision. From the time the Canning cleared the breakwater-a distance of about three-quarters of a mile from the place of collision-and was heading her course down towards the buoys, she had the Bellanoch slightly on her starboard bow, the Bellanoch moving very slowly ahead towards the eastward. If it is to be taken, for the purpose of considering the duties of the two ships, that they were then approaching so as to involve risk of collision, it would be difficult to hold that the Bellanoch did not commit a breach of the rules in neglecting to blow her whistle so as to indicate that her engines were going astern on the two occasions already mentioned. It is to be remembered, however, that the course of the Canning, as directed by the river pilot, was down the dredged channel to the two buoys, and that until she reached the buoys she would not, in the ordinary course, manœuvre to avoid ships to the south of them; and we are advised by the assessors that the necessity for action on the Canning's part did not arise until the Canning was approaching the buoys, and that there was no difficulty after passing the buoys in her manoeuvring to keep out of the way of the Bellanoch. When reaching the buoys it is quite clear that it was the duty of the Canning to port and go under the stern of the Bellanoch, and it was the duty of the Bellanoch to keep her course; this follows from arts. 19, 21, and 22.

There was, therefore, in my opinion no obligation upon the Bellanoch to sound her whistle, indicating that she was going astern, during the time that the Canning was coming down from the break water, until she got in proximity to the buoys. The action of the Bellanoch in going astern at the periods mentioned in the log was action taken by her not in consequence of the approach of the Canning, but in the ordinary course of her navigation, so as to enable her to go ahead upon her eastern course, as fast as the condition of mud would permit her. The speed of the Canning when she approached the buoys was stated by her preliminary act to be three knots, and by her captain to be from four and a half to five, reduced to three at the time of the collision. In my opinion it is not unfavourable to the Canning to assume that at the time when she passed between the buoys her speed was about four knots. This would give a mile in fifteen minutes, or a quarter of a mile in just under four minutes. The speed of the Bellanoch does not affect the question of time, as her course was at

right angles to the course of the Canning. Now, there is no dispute as to the time of the collision; it is fixed by both vessels at 4.45. According to the story of the Bellanoch, which the President has believed, her engines were going ahead five minutes before the collision, and I therefore come to the same conclusion as that at which the President has arrived, that her engines were not put full speed astern at any period when she was bound to control her actions in consequence of the approach of the Canning. It is true that art. 28 refers to the signals being given when vessels are in sight of one another, but the words immediately following, "in taking any course authorised or required by these rules," show that it does not mean in sight at any distance, but in sight with reference to the manoeuvres which a vessel is authorised or required to take, having regard to the other vessel approaching, for the purpose of avoiding collision. I have been unable to see how it can be contended that the reversing from 4.37 to 4.40 can be said to be 66 a course -we pointed out in The Anselm (ante, p. 438) that course does not mean course by compass, but the action of the vessel-"authorised or required by the rules."

In this respect the case differs entirely from The Anselm (ubi sup.), decided by Moulton, L.J. and myself a few days ago, in respect of a collision in the river Para, where the manœuvres in respect of which the Anselm neglected to give proper sound signals were taken with reference to and in order to avoid collision with

the other ship, the Cyril. It was attempted to be argued by counsel for the appellants that the going astern of the Bellanoch would stop her way to a greater or less extent, and therefore involve a breach by her of art. 21, which required her to keep her course and speed.

This was

not pleaded, and, as pointed out by the President, was hardly suggested in the court below; but, in my judgment, the answer is the same as that which I have given to the earlier part of the case. I think that any retardation of her speed prior to 4.40 was in the ordinary course of her navigation and not when she was bound to act with reference to the Canning, whose duty it was to keep out of her way.

I am therefore of opinion that even if there had been a breach of the rule on the part of the Bellanoch in not sounding her whistle, it would be a purely technical objection, and that it had no possible effect on the collision. The captain of the Canning admitted that he saw what the Bellanoch was doing all the time, and he alleged that the collision was occasioned by the Bellanoch coming astern through the water, a case which has been entirely disbelieved by the learned President. I ought to add that it was at first contended that under the circumstances the Bellanoch was a vessel out of command and ought to have shown the signals prescribed by arts. 4 and 11 of the rules. The learned President considered that the Bellanoch was not in a condition which required her to show those signals, and I agree with him. For these reasons I am of opinion that the appeal should be dismissed.

MOULTON, L.J.-I regret that I cannot come to the same conclusion. This is an action brought by the owners of the steamship Canning against the

owners of the steamship Bellanoch for damages occasioned by a collision between the two vessels on the 24th Dec. 1905, a short distance outside the harbour of Monte Video. The plaintiffs in their statement of claim throw the blame on the defendants' ship, and there is the usual defence and counter-claim in which the defendants throw the blame on the plaintiffs' ship. The court below has held the plaintiffs' ship alone to blame, and from this decision the present appeal is brought. To a great extent the circumstances under which the collision occurred are not in dispute. The place of the collision was a point about threequarters of a mile outside the breakwater which defines the inner harbour of Monte Video, and almost in the line of the dredged channel which stretches from the breakwater towards the sea. It is admitted on both sides that it was practically daylight, although the sun had not actually risen. It is agreed that there was no tide and only a light N.E. breeze, which it is not pretended had anything to do with the events that happened. The Canning had lain in the inner harbour that night, and on leaving her moorings proceeded on the line of the dredged channel so as, in accordance with the direction of the pilot, to pass between the two buoys lying at a distance of about half a mile from the breakwater, which mark the line of the channel. The direction of her course was substantially due south. From the time that she came to the breakwater, where she landed her river pilot, she could see the Bellanoch. There is some dispute about the actual speed at which she was going, the plaintiffs' captain putting the maximum at five knots an hour and the defendants' evidence at somewhat over that. The Bellanoch had been anchored overnight in the bay to the south-west of the inner harbour, and some three quarters of an hour before the collision occurred she had started in a direction substantially to the east and thus at right angles to the course taken by the Canning. She drew 20ft. 4in. forward and 24ft. 6in. aft, which was greater than the depth of water in that part of the bay, so that she was dragging through the mud all the time, the entry in the ship's log being "ship dragging heavily in mud and moving very slowly." According to the captain's evidence the actual rate at which she was going was about a mile an hour-it certainly could not have been more-and I think that we may safely take it that in the three quarters of an hour before the collision she had made about three-quarters of a mile headway. But it is evident from the log of the Bellanoch that this Her ground was covered at an unequal rate. engines were going full speed ahead from 3.54 to 4.20, but from 4.20 to the time of the accident they were going ahead and astern alternately at short intervals. It is quite evident from the evidence what she was doing, and the nautical assessors inform us that they have no doubt on this point. She was dragging so heavily that she was from time to time brought to rest, whereupon she reversed her engines, went astern for a period over the channel which she had just cut for herself, and then started forward again, gaining acceleration as she did so, and charged into the mud before her with the impetus thus obtained. By this process of "tilting at "the mud she slowly made progress. In fact, her manœuvres were exactly those of a railway snow

plough in clearing away heavy snow drifts, and could not be better described than in the crossexamination of the defendants' belmsman by counsel for the plaintiffs. The log shows that the helmsman was entirely accurate in the evidence he gave, because it states that between 4.20 and 4.40 the engines went full astern three times, and that from 4.40 they went full ahead until the mud stopped the vessel, which was shortly before the collision, the time of which is given at 4.45. Under these circumstances the Canning, after going between the buoys, had the Bellanoch slightly on her starboard bow. It was her duty to go astern of her, and accordingly she ported her helm, There is substantially no contest so far, but here the divergence of the evidence commences. The captain of the Canning says that he harda-ported from the first, and that when he did so he had plenty of room to alter his course sufficiently to pass astern of the Bellanoch, but that the Bellanoch went astern, and that consequently the Canning was unable to clear her, and struck her on the port side some 40ft. or 50ft. from the stern. The master of the Bellanoch says that his ship was passing about 300 yards from the buoys, and that the Canning left her porting too late, and that she ought to have ported before arriving at the buoys; and he denies that his ship went astern after the Canning had ported. It is common ground, however, that the master of the Canning hailed him to go ahead as the ships approached. The captain of the Canning says the reply was: "I cannot go ahead, I am on the ground." The master of the Bellanoch says that his reply was: "I am going ahead all I can. can do no more. My ship is on the ground." There is not much difference between the two versions, and as it is clear that the original statement of the helmsman of the Bellanoch, who heard it all, agreed with the evidence of the master of the Canning with regard to it, I think it is probable that the version given by the captain of the Canning is the more correct; but it is not necessary to decide this.

I

At the trial the President disbelieved the case made on behalf of the plaintiffs to the effect that the Bellanoch was going astern at the time of the collision. With this finding, which largely depended on oral testimony, we cannot interfere. The Canning, therefore, has no excuse for not clearing the Bellanoch. She either ported too late or did not port sufficiently, and she must be held to blame. It may, no doubt, be said on her behalf, that although she was aware that the Bellanoch was only moving very slowly, she did not know that the Bellanoch was liable to stop until too late. It is quite possible that the Bellanoch was, in fact, stationary, or almost stationary, during the critical minute or two immediately before the collision actually occurred, and that had she been moving, even at the average rate of progress which she had been making, she would have advanced the very short distance necessary to save the collision. But this is no defence for the Canning's action. Even if the collision had not occurred, the captain of the Canning would have been to blame for cutting it so fine. There was no excuse for so doing, and I therefore agree fully with the finding that the plaintiffs' vessel was to blame.

There is, however, a further question as to whether the defendant vessel was not also to blame, and on this point I regret that I find myself compelled to differ from the President of the court below, and, I fear, from my brethren here also. I have, however, a decided view upon the question, and as the points raised by the judgment seem to me to be of grave public importance, and as it may be that the case will go higher, I feel bound to give my reasons. I have already described the movements of the Bellanoch as taken from her own log. It is im possible to contest the proposition that these two vessels were under circumstances where the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea were applicable to them. During the whole time material for the consideration of this case they must have been within a mile of one another and taking courses which crossed at right angles the distances being such that the vessels would probably meet at the point of intersection. I doubt if the Bellanoch was ever more than a quarter of a mile to the right of the line of course of the Canning, if so much. The decision of this court in the case of The Beryl (51 L. T. Rep. 554; 5 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 321; 9 P. Div. 137) establishes what I should have thought was evident, even without a decision, that the regula tions were intended not only to prevent collision, but to prevent risk of collision, and that they are applicable at a time when the risk of collision can be avoided. In fact, neither party seems to have suggested in the court below that the regulations were not applicable, and the decision takes it to be so. The next point that is clearly made out is that these ships were crossing ships. From the first the Canning had the Bellanoch on its starboard bow, and therefore by art. 19 was from the first under the obligation of keeping out of the way of the Bellanoch. This readers it indisputable that the Bellanoch, by virtue of art. 20, was under the correlative duty of keeping her course and speed. The judgment of the court below finds that she did so. I shall, in favour of the Bellanoch, accept this finding as correct, and, indeed, I agree with it. The circumstances were peculiar, but certainly the Bellanoch was keeping the same course throughout and was going at the best speed she could under the circumstances. Similarly, I shall accept in the Bellanoch's favour the finding that she was under command, though I have more doubt about it. A reasonable interpretation of under command" would seem to me to be that the ship is capable of performing the ordinary manœuvres which would be expected of such a ship, and I have doubts as to whether a steamer that can only go ahead, and that very slowly, by repeated reversals of her engines, and can only imperfectly obey her helm by reason that she is on the ground, can be said to be under command. But it is unnecessary for me to discuss either of these findings, for I shall assume them in favour of the Bellanoch. If either of them be not justified she was certainly at fault, since it is admitted that she did not give the signals required by art. 4 to be given by a ship that is not under command. The next point that is clearly made out is that these two vessels were throughout in sight of one another. It could not be otherwise, for there was no obstacle whatever in the way, and it was fine weather and daylight. In fact, all the evidence shows that not only were the ships