Wreck Report for 'Hardwick', 1880

(No. 819.)

"HARDWICK." (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

In the matter of the formal investigation held at West Hartlepool on the 8th of December 1880, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain WHITE, R.N., and Captain HARLAND as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the foundering of the Steamship "HADWICK" of West Hartlepool, about 35 miles East of Gibraltar on the 1st of September 1880, whereby 18 lives were lost.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed,-

1. That the loss of the vessel was due, partly to the empty ballast tanks in her bottom, partly to the light and bulky character of the cargo, partly to her low freeboard, and partly to her well deck; which rendered her liable to take, and to capsize if she took, water on her deck.

2. That there is no reason to think that, when she left Odessa, she was not in good and seaworthy condition, so far as her hull was concerned; but that the shifting boards were not carried sufficiently low, and that if not overladen, she was at all events very deeply laden.

3. That looking to the construction of the vessel, as a well-decked vessel, the height of her empty ballast tanks, and her low freeboard, she had not sufficient stability.

No application was made for any order as to costs.

Dated this 8th day of December 1880.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

 

 

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

E. A. WHITE, R.N.,

Assessors

 

 

ROBERT HARLAND,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at West Hartlepool on the 8th of December instant, when Mr. de Hamel appeared for the board of Trade, and Mr. Tilly for the managing owner of the "Hardwick." Eight witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. de Hamel asked the opinion of the Court upon the following questions:

"1. What was the cause of the loss of the 'Hardwick' in the Mediterranean on the 1st of September 1880?

"2. Whether at the time she left Odessa she was in good and seaworthy condition? whether her cargo was properly stowed? and whether she was overladen?

"3. Whether looking to the construction of the vessel, the height of her water ballast tanks, and the depth to which she was laden, she had sufficient stability?"

Mr. Tilly having then addressed the Court on behalf of the managing owner, and Mr. de Hamel having replied for the Board of Trade, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions, on which its opinion had been asked. The circumstances of the case are as follows:-

The "Hardwick" was an iron screw steamship, belonging to the port of West Hartlepool, of 977 tons gross and 618 tons net register, and was fitted with engines of 99 horse power. She was built at Stockton-on-Tees in the year 1873, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. Thomas Appleby, of Commercial Buildings, West Hartlepool, and others, Mr. Appleby being the principal and the managing owner. She left Odessa on the 21st of August for Bristol, with a full cargo of barley, and a crew of 19 hands all told. Two days afterwards she reached Constantinople, and having there taken in 25 tons of coal, she proceeded on her voyage reaching Malta on the 27th. After taking in 50 tons more coal, she left, and nothing material occurred until the 1st of September following, when she was nearing Gibraltar. On that day the wind began to blow from the eastward, and at about 1 p.m. the vessel was observed to have a slight list to starboard, which continued to increase until about 3 p.m., when she shipped a very heavy sea on the port quarter, and heeled over with her rail under water. An attempt was thereupon made to set the jib and stay sail, but before this could be done, another heavy sea struck her on the same quarter, throwing her over on her beam ends. In about half an hour afterwards she turned bottom upwards. Some of her crew succeeded in getting upon her keel, but they were washed off, and in about two or three minutes afterwards the vessel sank. Hagstrom, a fireman, the only survivor out of the whole of the crew, succeeded in keeping himself afloat for about three quarters of an hour, when he was picked up by a Spanish vessel called the "Carmen Juanito," from which he was subsequently landed at Gibraltar.

Before we proceed to deal with the first question, namely, "What was the cause of the loss of the vessel?" it may be well to consider the other questions, on which our opinion has been asked. And the second question is, "Whether at the time the vessel left Odessa she was " in good and seaworthy condition? whether her cargo " was properly stowed? and whether she was over " laden?" The vessel was, as I have stated, built in the year 1873, classed at Lloyds 90 A1, and appears to have been well kept up; and there is nothing to show that she was not in good and seaworthy condition, so far as the hull was concerned, when she left Odessa. As regards, however, the stowage of the cargo, the Court is placed in some difficulty, owing to the captain and officers and every one board, except the fireman Hagstrom, having been drowned, and he, of course, could know nothing of the cargo. It seems, however, that the vessel had been ever since she was built in the year 1873 engaged in carrying coals outward and bringing home cargoes of grain, and as Captain Dure had been in her for the last six years, it may fairly be inferred that he would be thoroughly acquainted with the mode of stowing grain cargoes, and would be likely to use all those appliances with which he was provided to secure the cargo from shifting. These, we were told by Captain Rooke, the marine superintendent of Messrs. Appleby and Company, the owners, consisted of a double row of shifting boards, composed of three-inch planks, going from the upper deck to the hold beams, and secured between double iron stanchions. The question, however, which at once occurs to us is whether the shifting boards, assuming them to have been properly and securely fixed, went far enough down; and in the opinion of the assessors they did not. They think that, even though the cargo may have been trampled, as we are told it was, it would, with shifting boards only going down to the hold beams, be very likely to travel under them, and thus give the vessel a list. The assessors inform me that the shifting boards should have gone below the hold beams, if not down to the keelson; and that in their opinion they were not sufficient.

As to whether the vessel was overladen, the Court is also in a position of some difficulty, owing to the want of evidence of the facts. It appeared that a charter was entered into by Messrs. Appleby's Agents at Odessa for her to carry 8,000 chetwerts, which we are told was equivalents to 5,760 quarters of barley; but whether she took the whole 8,000 chetwerts on board or not, has not been satisfactorily shown. The bill of lading, we are told, has gone down with the ship, and Mr. Appleby stated that he does not know and never did know who the consignees were, and that he has never seen either the original or a copy of the bill of lading. Mr. Appleby was, however, prepared to admit that she probably had a full cargo of barley, but he could not say how deeply she was laden. We have thus only the evidence of Hagstrom, upon which to rely, as to the depth to which the vessel was laden. Now Hagstrom told us that, although he does not remember to have seen the load line when they left Odessa, he saw it whilst they were on the way to Constantinople, and that he then observed that it was about awash. The evidence is not very satisfactory, but it is all that we have; and it would seem to show that on leaving Odessa the load line must have been below the water. At Constantinople she took in 25 tons of coal, and as her daily consumption was about 8 tons per day, and she took only two days to go from Odessa to Constantinople, she would have more weight in her on leaving Constantinople than when she left Odessa. She took about four days more to reach Malta, during which she would consume about 32 tons of coal; and at Malta she took in 50 tons more coal, so that, when she left Malta, she would have a greater weight in her than even on leaving Constantinople. If, then, the load line was awash between Odessa and Constantinople, we may fairly assume, even after allowing for the greater saltness of the water, that on leaving Malta the load line would not be much, if at all, above the water. Now it is admitted that the load line was put at a depth of 1 foot 7 inches below the deck. Captain Rooke stated that, if the load line was put on whilst the vessel was in England, it was probably put on by his instructions; and we know from the evidence of Havelock, a former second mate of the vessel, that it was put on in England, for he told us that he had done it himself. But whether this was so or not, Captain Rooke knew of its position, and knew that it was only 1 foot 7 inches below the deck. He said that the principle which he adopted in putting the load line on a vessel of this class was to allow her the same draught of water as her depth of hold; and as her hold was 16 feet 6 inches deep, he considered that she might be safely loaded down to that depth, which would give her 1 foot 7 inches of freeboard, or about 1 1/7 inches for every foot depth of hold. It was pointed out to him that, with a coefficient of fineness of 73, which is what this vessel had, she ought, with a depth of hold of 16 1/2 feet, if she had been a flush decked ship, to have had, according to Mr. Martell's rule, a freeboard of 3 feet 5 1/2 inches; from which, however, of course would have to be made certain allowances for the iron deck, for which Captain Rooke claimed from 3 to 4 inches, and for the raised quarter deck aft, which was 82 feet long, and which we are told was extra strong, owing to the frames having been carried right up, and for which he claimed 2 feet. These allowances, he said, added to the 1 foot 7 inches of freeboard which she had, would give her a freeboard in excess of that allowed by Mr. Martell's rule. Captain Rooke also claimed a further allowance for the sheer and for the round of the deck, to which, however, we think that he was not entitled. What indeed should be allowed for such a raised quarter deck, as this vessel had, has not, we think, yet been decided; at the same time it appears to us that for a vessel of this size 1 foot 7 inches is hardly a sufficieht freeboard; and although we are not prepared to say from the evidence before us that the vessel was positively overladen, we have no hesitation in saying that she was very deeply laden.

We now come to the third question, which is, " Whether looking to the construction of the vessel, " the height of the water ballast tanks, and the depth " to which she was loaded, she had sufficient stability?" The vessel it seems had two water ballast tanks, one extending from the after engine-room bulkhead to within a few feet of the aftermost bulkhead, and which was 60 feet long and 3 feet deep forward, and 4 feet 6 inches aft; the other which extended from the forward engine-room bulkhead to within a few feet of the collision bulkhead, and which was 80 feet long, and about 3 feet 9 inches forward, and about 2 feet 5 inches aft. These two tanks contained, we are told, when full, about 225 tons of water, but at the time of the casualty there seems to be no doubt that they were empty. The effect of having these tanks empty would of course be to raise the centre of gravity higher than if she had had no ballast tanks, and than if those tanks had been full of water. In addition to this the vessel was laden with barley, which is light for a grain cargo, and as she was, we are told, as full as she could hold, and as deeply laden as she well could be, this would tend still further to raise her centre of gravity. The vessel, moreover, being a well-decked ship, with her main deck amidships only 1 foot 7 inches above the water, would be very likely to ship heavy seas, and there being only three ports on each side, any water that might be retained there would tend still further to raise the centre of gravity. It is therefore quite possible that in bad weather the vessel's centre of gravity might be so raised by shipping heavy seas, that she would run the chance of capsizing. We are therefore not prepared to say that, looking to the construction of the vessel, the height of her ballast tanks, and the depth to which she was laden, the vessel had sufficient stability.

This, then, brings us back to the first question, namely, " What was the cause of the loss of the 'Hardwick' in " the Mediterranean on the 1st of September 1880?" With her empty water tanks, and light and bulky cargo, the centre of gravity would already be high; when, therefore, she was struck by two heavy seas in succession, she would, owing to her low freeboard, ship a large quantity of water on her well deck, which would tend still further to raise the centre of gravity, rendering her very liable to capsize; and it is to this no doubt that her loss is due. In our opinion the casualty was owing partly to the empty water ballast tanks in her bottom, and the light character of her cargo, and partly to the lowness of her freeboard and the well deck, which would retain any water which she might ship, and thus render her liable to capsize. It is to all these combined that the loss of the vessel is, in our opinion, due.

No application was made for any order as to costs.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

 

 

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

E. A. WHITE, R.N.,

Assessors.

 

 

ROBERT HARLAND,

 

L 367. 589. 100.-12/80. Wt. 47. E. & S.