Wreck Report for 'Flos', 1880

"FLOS."

Office of the Wreck Commissioner, Somerset House, 30th September 1880.

SIR,

I BEG to send you herewith, for the information of the President of the Board of Trade, the Report, with Reasons annexed, of myself and the assessors, in the case of the Appeal by Henry Briggs of Hull, the managing owner of the ship "Flos," from the Report of James Stewart and James Napier Armit, the surveyors appointed by the Board of Trade to survey the said ship, and which was heard at the County Court, Hull, on the 16th, 17th, and 18th instant.

I am, Sir, Your most obedient Servant, H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

The Secretary, Board of Trade.

I enclose also copy of the minutes of the proceedings.

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

The Court of Survey for Hull, held at the County Court, Hull, on the 16th, 17th, and 18th days of September 1880.

In the matter of an Appeal by Henry Briggs of Hull, the managing owner of the ship "Flos," of the Port of Hull, from the Report of James Stewart and James Napier Armit, the surveyors appointed by the Board of Trade to survey the said ship.

I, Henry Cadogan Rothery, Wreck Commissioner for the United Kingdom, do report that, having heard this Appeal, I did, with the concurrence of Captain William Parfitt, the assessor appointed by the Board of Trade, and of Martin Samuelson, Esq., C.E., one of the assessors for the Court of Survey at Hull, for the reasons set forth in the annexed statement, order the said ship to be released upon her being lightened to the extent of six inches.

Dated this 18th day of September 1880.

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above Report.

WM. PARFITT, Assessor.

MARTIN SAMUELSON, Assessor.

This Appeal was heard at the County Court, Hull, on the 16th, 17th, and 18th days of September instant, when Mr. Bucknill appeared for the Appellant, and Mr. de Hamel for the Board of Trade. Twelve witnesses having been called by the Board of Trade, Mr. de Hamel asked the Court to order "that the steamship 'Flos' be finally " detained until she has a clear side of three feet in " Grimsby Dock, or until she has been lightened by un- " loading to such extent as the Court think necessary for " the protection of human life." He also asked the Court to order "that Henry Briggs, the managing owner of the " said steamship, do pay to the Board of Trade the costs " of and incidental to the detention of the said steamship " and of this Appeal."

Twenty-eight witnesses having then been called on behalf of the Appellant, Mr. Bucknill asked the Court to order " that the steamship 'Flos' be released from her pro- " visional detention by the Board of Trade."

Mr. de Hamel then recalled one of his witnesses, and both parties having been heard, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions which had been submitted for its consideration. The circumstances of the case are as follow:-

The "Flos" is an iron screw steamship of 1,384 tons gross, and 1,097 tons net register, and is fitted with engines of 110 horse-power. She was built at Stockton-on-Tees in the year 1870, and is the property of Messrs. Henry Briggs and Company and other gentlemen, Mr. Henry Briggs, the Appellant, being the managing owner. On the 24th of August last the vessel was lying in Great Grimsby Dock being about to start on a voyage to Alexandria with a cargo of 1,500 tons of coal, 69 of iron, and 258 of bunker coal or a total of 1,827 tons; when she was seen by Mr. Stewart engineer surveyor to the Board of Trade at Grimsby, who on his reporting her condition, received orders to detain her. On the following day Mr. Stewart went on board in company with Mr. Armit, shipwright surveyor to the Board of Trade at Hull; and they were there met by Mr. Hadfield, the surveyor for the owners. And Mr. Stewart and Mr. Armit having come to the conclusion that the vessel was too deeply laden, an opinion however in which Mr. Hadfield did not concur, orders were given that she should be provisionally detained, and that was accordingly done; upon which Mr. Briggs, the managing owner, entered an Appeal, and it is this Appeal which is now before us. It would seem however that, after the Appeal had been entered, the Board of Trade by some inadvertence issued an order for the final detention of the vessel; but this they had clearly no right to do, the power to finally detain, when there is an Appeal pending, being given to this Court; it is only when there is no Appeal that the Board of Trade can finally detain. The order it seems was subsequently withdrawn, and may therefore be regarded as though it had never issued.

Before I proceed to state the grounds upon which the Board of Trade have determined to detain this vessel, it may be well to state that she belongs to the type of vessel generally known as well-decked ships, having a long poop aft and a raised forecastle forward. She had also an iron main deck, running fore and aft, and six water-tight bulk-heads. Her total length was 247.7 feet, main breadth 32.8 feet, and depth of hold 18.95 feet. The poop, which extended from aft to just forward of the engine-room, was 132 feet long, there was then a break of 91 feet, and forward of that was the topgallant forecastle, 27 feet long; both the poop and topgallant forecastle being about 7 feet high. In front of the poop was an iron bulkhead; and on the exposed part of the main deck, forming the well, were two hatches, a fore and a main hatch.

The ground originally put forward by the Board of Trade for the detention of this vessel was that she was overladen; but in the course of the inquiry other charges have been preferred, which Mr. Bucknill has stated that he might, if he had thought fit, have refused to entertain; but he has not taken that course, the owners to their credit being anxious to meet all charges that might be made against them. These are (1) that the iron bulkhead forward of the poop was not sufficiently solid; (2) that the main hatch was not strong enough; (3) that there were not sufficient outlets for the water which might come into the well; and (4) that the vessel was overladen.

These we will proceed to consider in order.

And first as regards the bulkhead forward of the poop. In this, it seems, there were four doors, one opening into each of the side bunkers, one into a small store room, and one into a passage which led into the engineers' cabins and into the stoke-hole. It is true that all these doors were of iron; but it was said that the bulkhead should have been solid, and that it should have had no openings; and Mr. Armit told us that the framing on which the doors hung had been weakened by having had a portion of the angle irons cut away. On the other hand we have had the evidence of a great many witnesses, some of them produced by the Board of Trade, and amongst them Captain Forster, who have told us that in their opinion it was a very good, strong, substantial bulkhead, and to which there could be no objection. it seems that in February last the vessel had encountered a very severe gale of wind in the Mediterranean, in the course of which the bulkhead had been much damaged, and that on her return to this country the owners had put a new bulkhead into her; and what we have to consider is not whether the former bulkhead was or was not sufficient, but whether the new bulkhead which she now has is sufficiently strong and solid; and in our opinion it is. Mr. Spence, the builder of the ship, told us that the new bulkhead (which I may observe he did not put in) was twice as strong as the one with which she was originally supplied; and that it was the best that he had ever seen. But whether this be so or not, we have no doubt that it was amply sufficient for the purpose.

The next charge against her is that the main hatchway was not sufficiently strong. We are told that it is 27 feet long by 11 feet broad; that across it are two solid iron bars, on which rest the fore and afters, and above these are the carlings supporting the hatches, which are of inch to inch-and-a-quarter plank. That the hatchway was large there can be no doubt, and there is something, perhaps, in what Captain Paton said, that it appears strange that the decks should be made of 3-inch planks, whilst the hatches are only made of one-inch plank. At the same time it must be remembered that the decks are fixed, whilst the hatches must be made moveable; and that to increase very greatly their thickness, and consequently their weight, might render them very difficult to handle. But, however this may be, there can be no doubt that it was of the usual and ordinary description, and that it was a good hatchway for an ordinary cargo ship; and although hatchways may now sometimes be made of thicker planks, I do not think that we should be justified in detaining this vessel on the ground that her main hatchway was not sufficient.

The third question with which we have to deal is whether the freeing ports or outlets for the water were sufficient. The only part, of course, where these would be needed would be in the space between the poop and forecastle, commonly called the well, which was protected on each side by bulwarks 5 feet high, and where any large accumulation of water would be likely to endanger the safety of the ship unless sufficient freeing ports or outlets were provided to allow it to escape quickly. It seems that there were in this part 4 spring or mooring pipes, 13 by 7 1/2 inches, giving an area of 306.2 square inches; two freeing ports, 1 foot 10 1/2 by 1 foot 4 1/2, with an area of 742 square inches; 8 freeing scuttles of 2 feet 3 1/2 by 6 1/2 inches, with an area of 1,430 square inches; and 6 scuppers, 6 1/2 by 7 inches, giving 210 square inches; making a total of 2.688.6 square inches, or 18 6 square feet. It is true that, with the exception of the scuppers, the bottoms of all these openings stood from 10 inches to 2 feet above the deck; and although it would certainly have been better had they been placed lower down, the Assessors are not prepared to say that the openings were not sufficient.

We come then to the fourth and last question, whether the vessel is or is not too deeply laden. I have already stated that she was a well-ship, a type of vessel which some of the witnesses seem disposed to condemn utterly, whilst others speak of them in terms of great praise. I think, however, that we shall all be disposed to agree that, whilst they are superior to flush-decked ships, they are inferior to vessels with the well covered in, or in other words to spardecked vessels, provided always that the main deck is at the same height above the water. No doubt the long poop aft is a great protection to the vessel when running before a sea, and at the same time the topgallant forecastle acts as a good breakwater when the ship is head to sea; but in a well-ship there is always the danger of her shipping beam seas, and of her taking in so much water amidships as either to prevent her rising to the sea, or of its staving in the poop or the forecastle; and we could perhaps hardly have a better instance of it than in the case of this very vessel when she encountered a heavy gale in the Mediterranean in February last, and when, as appears from her protest, the forecastle was filled at one end, and the bulkhead burst in at the other, by the water washing about in the well.

And first let us see what amount of freeboard or clear side this vessel has. According to Messrs. Stewart and Armit the vessel drew 17 feet 5 forward and 19 feet 4 aft, or a mean of 18 feet 4 1/2, which we are told gave her a freeboard of 2 feet I inch, and in this they were confirmed by the report of Mr. Hatfield, the owners' surveyor. Other witnesses who examined her give her a freeboard of 2 feet 2 to 2 feet 2 1/2; the difference is not very great, and arises, probably, partly from there being more or less salt water in the dock when the measurements were taken, partly from the place where the freeboard was taken, whether at the break of the poop, or at the disc, which is 5 feet abaft the break. We think, however, that the freeboard should be taken at the lowest point on the exposed portion of the main deck, which seems to have been at the break of the poop, and the evidence seems to show that the clear side at that point was 2 feet 2 to 2 feet 2 1/2 inches. Adding to this 2 to 3 inches, which she would rise immediately on getting into salt water, we have a clear side of about 2 feet 5, which on a depth of hold of 18.95 feet gives about 1.5 inches of freeboard to every foot of hold. According, however, to the Board of Trade this vessel should have not less than 2 to even 2 1/4 inches per foot of hold, or from 38 to 42 inches of clear side; and as she now lies in Grimsby Dock, not less at any rate than 3 feet, or 36 inches. On the other hand the witnesses for the owners say that, if due allowance were made for the iron main deck, for the long poop, for the extra crop of the deck, for the difference between fresh and salt water, and for the consumption of coals before she would be likely to encounter very heavy weather, it would be found that at her present draught she would have sufficient freeboard or clear side. Putting aside the evidence of Mr. Spence, the builder, who endeavoured to make out that, if the proper allowances were made, the vessel would at her present draught have a freeboard of 4 feet 10 1/2 inches, a conclusion at which he arrived by claiming allowance for a variety of things which none of the other witnesses attempted to do; let us take the evidence of Mr. Pearson, a gentleman of very large experience, and the Superintendent of the Oriental Ship Association, and see what is the result at which he arrives. He told us that, when he took the measurements, the clear side at the lowest point of the exposed portion of the main deck was 26 inches on the port and 27 1/2 on the starboard side, giving a mean of 26 3/4 inches. To this he would add

 

for the iron deck in place of wood

  3 inches,

 

for the difference of salt and fresh water

  3    "

 

for the extra crop of the deck

  3    "

 

for the long poop

  4    "

 

for the forecastle

  nil,

 

for the consumption of coal before

  2    "

 

  reaching Ushant

 

 

Total

1 foot 3 inches,

making a total of 3 feet 5 3/4, or say 3 feet 6 inches. But then Mr. Pearson was obliged to admit that the proper allowance for a flush-decked vessel with 18 feet of hold would be 4 feet of clear side, showing, according to his own admission, and even after making allowance for three days' consumption of coals, that, as she now lies, she has 6 inches too little freeboard, which is not very different from what some of the witnesses for the Board of Trade say when they tell us that she ought to have 3 feet of clear side. And as we are told that the vessel at her present draught of water would rise 1 inch for every 16 tons taken out of her, it would seem to follow that, even according to Mr. Pearson, the vessel has about 100 tons too much of cargo in her.

But it was said, and with truth, that to estimate the carrying capacity of a vessel by so many inches of freeboard to every foot depth of hold was a coarse, rough mode of doing it, for that it made no allowance for the extra depth of the floor plates, or for the lines of the vessel; and that the only proper method was to ascertain the amount of spare or surplus buoyancy which she possessed. It may be well, however, after the evidence given by Mr. Spence, the builder of the ship, that we should agree as to what we mean by spare or surplus buoyancy. In Mr. White's Manual of Naval Architecture, a work of the highest authority, I find the following remarks at page 12: " Reserve of buoyancy is a phrase now commonly employed " to express the volume, and corresponding buoyancy, of the " part of the ship not immersed, but which may be made " water-tight, and which, in most vessels, would be enclosed " by the upper deck, although in many cases there are " water-tight enclosures above that deck, such as poops, " forecastles, breastworks, &c. The under-water, or im- " mersed, part of a ship contributes the buoyancy; the out- " of-water part the reserve of buoyancy, and the ratio " between the two has a most important influence upon " the safety of the ship against foundering at sea. The " sum of the two, in short, expresses the total "floating " power" of the vessel, and the ratio of the part which " is utilised to that in reserve is a matter requiring the " most careful attention. This fact has come into promi- " nence recently in the discussion of questions of lading " and freeboard as affecting the safety of merchant ships." He then goes on at page 14 as follows: "As regards mer- " chant ships, the diversity of practice in loading renders " it difficult to lay down any rule; there seems, however, a " concurrence of opinion in fixing the minimum reserve of " buoyancy at from 20 to 30 per cent. of the displacement, " varying it according to the season of the year, the " character of the cargo, extent of the voyage, &c. But, " perhaps, the greatest difficulty met with in attempting to " apply any such rule to merchant ships is found in the " selection of those parts of the ships which shall be " regarded as contributing to the reserve of buoyancy. " 'Spar decks,' 'deck - houses,' 'enclosed poops and " forecastles,' &c., are very commonly built of compara- " tively slight scantlings above the upper deck proper; " and the assignment of proper values to these erections in " estimating the reserve of buoyancy has given rise to " much discussion, out of which no practical rule for " guidance has come which can command general accept- " ance."

Bearing these observations in mind, let us see what amount of spare buoyancy this vessel possesses, a point upon which the only person who was in a position to give us any information was Mr. Spence, the builder of the ship. All the other witnesses spoke either in very general terms, or relied on Mr. Spence's figures. Now, according to Mr. Spence, the vessel's displacement at her present draught, or in other words the buoyancy of the immersed portion of the vessel, is 2,900 tons, whilst that of the unimmersed portion below the main deck is 713 tons, of the poop as far as the engine-room 489 tons, of the engine-room space above the main deck 282 tons, and of the forecastle 126 tons. He then went on to tell us that, taking only the portion of the vessel below the main deck, the spare or surplus buoyancy is 24 3/4 per cent.; that including the poop as far as the engine-room it is 42 per cent.; including the engine-room space it is 50 per cent.; and adding thereto the forecastle it is 54 per cent. And as according to Mr. Spence a vessel ought to have from 40 to 50 per cent. of spare buoyancy, he considered, to use his own words, that she had a "very abundant spare buoyancy." It turned out, however, on further inquiry that, in estimating the amount of spare buoyancy, Mr. Spence has taken the proportion that the immersed portion of the vessel bears to the unimmersed portions, not the proportion that the unimmersed portions bear to the total buoyancy, by which means he obtains a much higher rate of percentage. Mr. Spence was asked what would be the spare buoyancy of a vessel of which 1/4 was immersed and 3/4 out of the water, and he answered at once 75 per cent., taking the proportion between the unimmersed portion and the total capacity; whereas if he had adopted the plan which he had taken in estimating the spare buoyancy of the "Flos" he would have made it 300 per cent., the unimmersed being three times that of the immersed portion. Making then this correction, and assuming the accuracy of Mr. Spence's figures, we find that the spare buoyancy below the main deck is 19.7, instead of 24 3/4 per cent., that being the proportion which 713, the unimmersed portion, bears to the total of 3,613 tons. Mr. Spence has also taken the poop and the forecastle as equivalent to the space below the deck for estimating spare buoyancy, a principle which cannot possibly be admitted, and which was not contended for by any other of the Appellant's witnesses.

The question however is, what allowance of spare buoyancy should there be for a full-pooped vessel, such as the "Flos," taking spare buoyancy to mean the proportion which the unimmersed portion of the ship below the main deck bears to the total capacity below that deck. According to Mr. Cole, one of the Appellant's witnesses, and a gentleman of large experience, she ought, exclusive of poop and forecastle, to have a spare buoyancy of 20 to 25 per cent. as a minimum. If so, this vessel, which had only a spare buoyancy below the main deck of 19.7 per cent., even on Mr. Spence's own figures, would have something under the extreme minimum. There is not, it would seem, any positive rule as to the amount of spare buoyancy which a vessel of this type should have, but according to the assessors it ought hardly to be less than 23 per cent., 23 to 25 being considered a minimum. If then 100 tons of cargo were taken out of her, which would be equivalent, as we have seen, to raising her about 6 inches higher out of the water, we should have 2,800 tons immersed and 813 tons unimmersed, and this would give us a spare buoyancy below the main deck of 22.7 per cent., which, although a minimum, might perhaps be regarded as sufficient.

On the whole, then, the conclusion to which we have come, whether we regard the case from the question of freeboard or of spare buoyancy, is that she ought to be lightened to the extent of 6 inches. We shall therefore make an order that she be detained until that is done, but that on her being lightened to that extent she shall be immediately released. This is the opinion at which, after a full and careful consideration of all the facts of the case, we have unanimously arrived.

One question remains to be considered, the question of costs, Mr. de Hamel having asked us to give to the Board of Trade their costs of these proceedings; but it appears to us that we have no power to do so, the parties not having consented to refer that question to us. I may add however that, had the question been left to us, we should not have condemned the owners in the costs. We are told that this vessel has now been running for ten years, and that during that time she has made 54 voyages, on 20 of which she carried as large, if not larger, cargoes than she now has on board; and that with one exception she has not met with any serious damage. This circumstance would, we think, acquit the owners of any culpability for having laden her to the extent they have done.

In connection also with the question of costs, we must not omit to notice one point, to which our attention was specially called by Mr. Bucknill. Mr. de Hamel has in the statement which he has given in asked that the vessel should be lightened to the extent of giving her a clear side of 3 feet in Grimsby Dock; but we are told that when the owners asked the Board of Trade officers to what extent they required the vessel to be lightened they would give them no information, but only said generally that she must be lightened. Now the 6th Article of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1876, paragraph 3, provides that the Board of Trade may order the vessel to be detained, either absolutely or until the performance of certain conditions as to the unloading or reloading of the cargo as they may "think necessary for the protection of human life." it does not indeed say that the Board of Trade is to state the conditions which it may think proper to impose, but it seems only reasonable that they should do so; to detain a vessel without stating what is required to be done appears to us to be a somewhat harsh exercise of authority; and it may be worth the consideration of the Board of Trade whether they should not instruct their officers, when they detain a vessel, to intimate to the owners generally what in their opinion should be done to render the vessel seaworthy; and had the question of costs been referred to us, the fact that they had not done so in this case would probably have influenced us in the decision to which we should have come.

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

WM. PARFITT, Assessor.

MARTIN SAMUELSON, Assessor.

COURT OF SURVEY FOR HULL.

The "FLOS."

September 16.-The Wreck Commissioner, being assisted by Captain Parfitt, the assessor appointed by the Board of Trade, and by Martin Samuelson, Esq., C E., one of the assessors for the Court of Survey at Hull, proceeded to hear this Appeal.

Mr. Bucknill appeared for the Appellant, and Mr. de Hamel for the Board of Trade.

J. W. Mill, shorthand writer, was sworn faithfully to report.

The following witnesses were produced by the Board of Trade, and were sworn and examined orally in Court, viz., J. Stewart, J. N. Armit, J. Spear, G. H. Forster, J. S. Castle, J. Hindson, W. Chadwick Watson, H. Cole, G. Fowler, J. Medlicott Cawkitt, W. Ballantyne, and Walter Paton.

The Court adjourned the further hearing to to-morrow, the 17th instant.

September 17.-Mr. de Hamel handed in the order which the Board of Trade desired the Court to make.

Mr. Bucknill then produced as witnesses on behalf of the Appellant H. Briggs, M. Brown, H. G. Spence, G. J. Cole, J. Thompson, A. Pearson, G. Stavers, T. B. Carr, W. Abbott, G. Taylor, R. Paul Priest, J. Wilson, G. H. Broadhead, and T. Hedger, who were sworn and examined orally in Court.

The Court adjourned the further hearing of the Appeal to to-morrow, the 18th instant.

September 18.-Mr. Bucknill produced as further witnesses J. Nicholson, M. Brown, T. Martin, H. Bergwitz, James Ruker, E. Leatham, H. Robinson, C. H. Smith, R. A. Harbord, J. Kingston, P. Hanson, P. Svensen, J. Gascoigne, and S. B. Jackson, who were sworn and examined orally in Court.

Mr. Bucknill then handed in the order which the Appellant required the Court to make.

The witness J. N. Armit was recalled and further examined.

Mr. Bucknill addressed the Court on behalf of the Appellant, and Mr. de Hamel replied for the Board of Trade.

The Court, with the concurrence of both assessors, found that the vessel "Flos" was too deeply laden to the extent of six inches, and ordered that upon her being unladen to that extent she be immediately released.

No order was made as to costs, there having been no agreement between the parties that that question should be referred to the Court.

Q 3106. 100.-10/80. G 386. E. & S.