Wreck Report for 'Countess of Kintore', 1883

(No. 1835.)

"COUNTESS OF KINTORE."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at the Sessions House, Westminster, on the 18th and 19th of June 1883, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain HIGET, Captain KIDDLE, R.N., and W. B. ROBINSON, Esquire, Chief Constructor, R.N., as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the supposed loss of the sailing ship "COUNTESS OF KINTORE," whilst on a voyage from Rangoon to the English Channel with a cargo of rice.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above - mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed, that the said ship, although in a good and seaworthy condition, so far as her hull was concerned, when she left Rangoon in the month of May 1882, was too deeply laden, but that there is nothing to hew how she was lost.

The Court did not make any order as to costs.

Dated this 19th day of June 1883.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

EDWARD HIGHT,

W. B. ROBINSON, Chief

Constructor, R.N.,

JAMES KIDDLE,

Captain R.N.,

Assessors.

Annex to the Report.

The "Countess of Kintore" was a wooden barque of 737 tons gross and register, belonging to the Port of Aberdeen. She was built at Aberdeen in the year 1866, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. William Thomas, of Amlwch, in Anglesea, and others, Mr. William Thomas being the managing owner. She left Rangoon on the 26th of May 1882, with a crew of 17 hands and a cargo of rice in bags, bound to the English Channel. On the 13th of August following she put into St. Helena for provisions and water, left again on the 15th, and on the 15th of September following she was spoken by the "Earl of Dalhousie," in latitude 33° North, and longtitude 37° West; but from that time she has not, so far as we are aware, been either seen or heard of; and the object of the present inquiry is to ascertain if possible what has become of her.

The first and third questions which we are asked relate to the vessel's seaworthiness, so far as her hull was concerned, and I propose, therefore, to take them together. They are "(1) Whether, when the vessel last left the United Kingdom, she was in good and seaworthy condition?" and "(3) Whether, when the "vessel left Rangoon, she was in good and seaworthy condition?" The vessel, it seems, had been built for Messrs. Cook and Son, of Aberdeen, to run as a clipper ship between this country and New Zealand. She had been originally classed A 1 at Lloyd's for 9 years, .but at the half-time survey, owing to some improvement in her condition, her class was extended to 11 years. In 1876, shortly before the expiration of her class, some considerable repairs were done to her, amounting to about 2,0001., and she was then continued on her Original class for 7 years more. During the 13 years that Messrs. Cook and Sons owned her, namely, from 1866 to 1879, she made 13 voyages, the first eleven being to New Zealand and back with general cargoes and passengers, the last .two to Japan and Batavia respectively, returning with rice and sugar. At length in 1879, finding that she would not pay, iron ships having taken the place of wooden ships in the New Zealand trade, Messrs. Cook determined to sell her, and she was accordingly put up to public auction at Birkenhead, and was purchased by Mr. William Thomas for the sum of 1,800l., subject, however, to the usual inspection in dock. On being examined in dock it was found that the fore part of the keel had been damaged.; 60l. of the purchase money had, therefore, to be refunded. Before, however, sending her away Mr. Thomas spent upon her between 600l and 700l., an d she then made two voyages to the East, taking out coals and returning with rice; and she was in course of returning with a third cargo of rice when she was lost. Before being sent away on the third voyage she had been put into dry dock at Hull, and a sum of about 1,100l. had been spent upon her; the jibboom had been taken out of her, the fore topmast and fore topgallant mast shortened, and a number of new sails had been supplied to her. It seems to have been the period for the half-time survey; owing, however, to a circumstance which is mentioned in a note endorsed on the certificate, the survey was begun, but was not completed. That note is in these words:—"A part of the outward cargo of " coal had been shipped before the owners submitted the vessel to survey, extending in the lower hold from " 16 feet before the main hatch to 31 feet abaft the " main hatch. The owner purposes submitting this " part of the vessel, on her return from the present " (short) voyage. Signed, James MacNeil." It all other respects, it was stated in the' certificate, that her condition was good. The vessel accordingly left, and in due course arrived without accident at Rio, and we have a letter from the master, dated Rio, December 5th, written after his arrival there, in which he says that " the ship is tight and staunch, and in every respect " satisfactory, especially after displacing the jibboom, " she is quite a different ship, and sails quite as fast." Although, then, the vessel left this country on her last voyage with an incomplete certificate, I think that we are justified in saying that she was, so far as her hull was concerned, in a good and seaworthy condition.

Having discharged a portion of her coal at Rio, and not having obtained a charter there, the owner determined to send her to Rangoon; there she loaded a cargo of rice, and was on the point of leaving on the homeward voyage, when a fire broke out on board, which obliged them to discharge a large portion of the cargo. After repairing the damage and replacing the damaged cargo with fresh bags of rice, she left on the 22nd of May 1882; and there is no reason to think either that the damages which she had sustained at Rangoon were not properly and efficiently repaired, or that she was, so far as her hull was concerned, in other than a good and seaworthy condition.

Questions two and four, which relate to the vessel's freeboard, may be more conveniently taken together; they are as follow:—" (2) Whether, when the vessel last " left the United Kingdom, the disc was so placed as to " give her sufficient freeboard if loaded down to it?" and "(4) Whether, when she left Rangoon she was overladen?" And, first, as regards the position of the loadline, Mr. Cook told us that when he had to fix its position he allowed 3 inches for every foot depth of hold so as to give her always a clear side of 4 feet 9 inches, the depth of the hold being 19.1 feet; and he stated that, so far as he was aware, the position of the loadline was never altered during the time the vessel remained in their possession. Captain Norie, too, under whose command she had made two voyages to the East, the first in 1876, from London to Canterbury, with a general cargo, returning to London with wheat, and the second in 1877, from London to Yokohama and Hiogo, with a general cargo, returning to Hamburgh with rice, told us that at that time the loadline was, to the best of his belief, at 4 feet 8 or 4 feet 9 inches, and this was confirmed by the entries in the ship's articles and the official log books for these voyages, where the loadline is stated to have been at 4 feet 8, but Captain Norie thought that it was at 4 feet 9 inches.

There is, however, very good reason to believe that on the next voyage, being the last which she made before Messrs. Cook sold her, the loadline was raised. Captain Norie, as I have stated, brought the ship back to Hamburgh, and a Captain Morgan then took command of her. Now, in the official copy of the articles, which Captain Morgan left with the British Consul previous to his departure from Hamburgh, the load line is stated to have been at 4 feet 8 inches; but in the original articles which he had to leave with the superintendent of the Mercantile Marine at Liverpool on his return, as well as in the official log book for that voyage, the position of the load line is given as 4 feet. The discrepancy seems to have attracted the attention of the superintendent, and on his calling on Captain Morgan for an explanation, the latter wrote a letter dated the 14th of February 1879, in which the following passage occurs, "As regards alteration of " the load line, I beg to say that, on joining the ship " at Hamburgh, I found the load line wrongly put "down, and sent it ashore to be altered." What Captain Morgan means by saying that he had to send it ashore to be altered I cannot imagine, seeing that the alteration had to be made not ashore, but on the vessel's side. But be this as it may, it seems clear that Captain Morgan, after joining the ship at Hamburgh, raised the load line from 4 feet 8 to 4 feet, and this too without communicating with the owner on the subject, for Mr. Cook told us that he was under the impression that the position of the load line had never been changed whilst the ship remained in their hands. This, to say the least, appears to have been a very unwarrantable proceeding on Captain Morgan's part, but he has not been examined, and we have therefore not had any explanation from him as to why he did it, or why he thought that 4 feet 8 or 4 feet 9, at which it had been placed before, was a wrong position. The amount of the cargo which she is reported to have carried on the voyage when Captain Morgan commanded her may very possibly account for the raising of the load line. It seems that on the two voyages on which she was commanded by Captain Norie, she brought home the first time 864 tons of wheat, and the second time 854 tons of rice, and he told us that on each occasion she drew about 17 feet 6, and that the water Was within an inch or two of the centre of the disc, which was then at 4 feet 8 or 4 feet 9. On the next voyage, when she was commanded by Captain Morgan, we are told that she had in her 832 tons, 10 cwt., 3 quarters and 12 lbs. of sugar, besides about 100 tons of ballast, making a total of above 930 tons. But if with 854 and 864 tons she was nearly down to the load line, it is obvious that, if they wanted to put above 930 tons, or some 70 or 80 tons more into her, it would be necessary to raise the position of the load line, that is to say, if they did not want to submerge it. Possibly then this may have been the cause why Captain Morgan raised the load line from 4 feet 8 or 9 to 4 feet, so that he might be able to carry a larger cargo. What was the amount of cargo which he took out from Hamburgh, and whether the alteration of the load line was made, as he says it was, at Hamburgh, or whether it was made at Yokohama or at Hiogo, when he knew what cargo he was about to bring home, it is not for us to say; it was however a very improper act for him to do without communicating with the owner on the subject, the more so as Mr. Cook has told us that in his opinion 4 feet 9 was the proper place at which to put the load line, the vessel being a clipper ship, and not suited for the carriage of heavy cargoes.

But be this as it may, Mr. Thomas on purchasing the vessel seems not to have been satisfied with the position of the load line, even at 4 feet from the deck, or rather with the vessel's capacity at that draft. It seems that one of the conditions inserted in the particulars of sale was that the vessel should carry 1,000 tons on a draft of 18 feet 6; Mr. Cook told us that immediately on seeing this he wrote to his agents repudiating this condition, and desiring that it should be withdrawn. Mr. Thomas, however, said that he bought it with the understanding that she would carry 1,000 tons, and that he was very much disappointed that she would not do so. Now we were told by Mr. Cook and Captain Norie that with about 860 tons of cargo on board the vessel drew about 17 feet 6, and had a freeboard of about 4 feet 9. We were told also that at this draft she had a displacement of about 8 tons to the inch, so that a freeboard of 4 feet, or 9 inches more draft, would only allow her to take about 70 to 80 tons more cargo, and if the vessel was to carry 1,000 tons of cargo it would be necessary that the load line should be still further raised. Mr. Thomas has told us that he gave no directions as to where the load line should be placed, he left it to a Mr. Pickthall, who was deputed by him to see to her fitting out. Mr. Pickthall it seems had a considerable interest in the vessel, and was the father-in-law of Captain Edwards, who was going out in her, and Mr. Thomas told us that although he had some conversations with them as to what she ought to carry he left it entirely to them to place the load line where they thought proper. Mr. Thomas indeed could not tell us where the load line was placed, and neither Mr. Pickthall nor Captain Edwards have been produced, but it is clear from the ship's articles and official log books for the voyages during which she was owned by Mr. Thomas, that it was placed at 3 feet 7, being 2 1/4 inches to every foot depth of hold. One question therefore which we shall have to consider is whether 3 feet 7 would have been a sufficient freeboard for her.

And now let us see what was the weight of the cargo which she had on leaving Rangoon, and what was her draft, and what her freeboard. We were told by Mr. Hodges the managing clerk to Messrs. Bullock, the shippers, that the cargo consisted of 9,660 bags of rice, averaging 220 lbs. each, giving a total of 948 tons 15 cwt. Of this about 218 tons were landed after the fire, and there was a question whether 216 tons or only 210 had been afterwards shipped instead-At all events we may take the quantity of cargo, with which the vessel sailed, to have been about 940 to 946 tons, or between 70 and 80 tons more than she had had on either of the two voyages, on which she was commanded by Captain Norie. Now on those two voyages she is stated to have drawn about 17 feet 6, and as we are told that her displacement was about 8 tons to the inch, 70 to 80 tons would sink her about 9 inches more; so that her draft on leaving Rangoon would be about 18 feet. 3, leaving her a freeboard of 4 feet; and this in fact agrees very nearly with the evidence of the Rangoon pilot, who says that, when she left, she drew 18' feet 1 inch forward and 18 feet 4 aft, giving her a mean of 18 feet 2 1/2 inches.

Now in considering whether a freeboard of 3 feet 7 or even of 4 feet would have been sufficient for this vessel, it is as well to see, first what freeboard would be assigned by Lloyd's and by the Board of Trade rules for an ordinary cargo carrying vessel of her dimensions. Unfortunately we have not all the dimensions requisite for calculating her freeboard by these rules, for we do not know what camber she had, or what sheer, or what value, if any, ought to be assigned to the deck erections. Taking however the co-efficient of fineness to be 60, and the moulded depth about 20 feet, table D of Lloyd's rules would give us a freeboard of 3 feet 9. Again, according to the Board of Trade rules, which were in use until recently, a hard wood vessel with an under deck tonnage of 650 tons should have a minimum freeboard of 2.47 inches to every foot depth of hold, or about 3 feet 11. According then to these rules a freeboard of 3 feet 7 would clearly be insufficient, whilst a freeboard of 4 feet would be slightly in excess of the requirements. It must, however, be remembered that the "Countess of Kintore" was a clipper ship, with sharp ends, and a considerable rise of floor; and we are told in a note on page 5 of the Board of Trade rules, that "no vessel is so uneasy in a seaway as a clipper " ship loaded deep," and that "therefore a sailing " vessel with a great rise of floor and fine ends should " not be allowed to load more deeply than an ordinary " vessel, if anything the reverse;" and in that opinion the assessors entirely concur.

To judge, however, how deeply this vessel could be laden without danger to the lives of those on board, it may be well to refer to the evidence of those who had known her. Mr. Cook, who had owned her for 13 years had placed the load line at 4 feet 9 from the deck, that being in his opinion a proper position for it, and he told us that being a clipper ship she was in his opinion not suitable for heavy cargoes, and that they had never to his knowledge or with his consent put heavy cargoes in her. Captain Norie, who had commanded her on two voyages' out and home, told us that with a draft of 17 feet 6, and a freeboard of 4 feet 9 she was a very wet ship, and on being asked where she took the water in he answered that she was not very particular, that she took it in any way. He added, that he would not have liked to go to sea in her more deeply laden than she had been when he commanded her. Taking all these facts into consideration, the assessors are of opinion that this vessel, had she been laden down to her load line with a freeboard of only 3 feet 7, would have been greatly overladen; and that, even with a freeboard of 4 feet was more deeply laden than she ought to have been for a voyage from Rangoon to this country, in fact, so deeply laden that it would be difficult to say that she was not overladen.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Had she " sufficient stability as laden?" Having no plans of the vessel before us, it is impossible for us to pronounce any decided opinion upon this point, all that we can say is that both Mr. Cook and Captain Norie have told us that she was a very tender ship, and even Mr. Thomas was obliged to admit that when light she was tender, and it is not easy to see how the fact of her being overladen, especially with a light homogeneous cargo like rice, could tend to increase her stability. On the whole, we are inclined to think that she had not sufficient stability as laden.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "What, in the opinion of the Court, from the evidence before it, " is the cause of this vessel not having been heard of, " since she was spoken on or about the 15th of Sep- " tember last, on a voyage from Rangoon to the " Channel; and whether blame attaches to Mr. " Thomas, the managing owner?" It is of course quite impossible for us to say what has become of her; we are told, however, that the "Earl of Dalhousie," soon after parting from her, encountered bad weather, in the course of which she sustained considerable damage; and it is possible that the "Countess of Kintore" may have fallen in with the same gale, and if so, it is quite possible that, deeply laden as she was, she may have gone down; but of course it can only be a matter of conjecture. Whether blame attaches to Mr. Thomas, the managing owner, is a point which we have very carefully considered. It was said that Mr. Thomas was to blame for not having taken proper measures to see that the load line was properly fixed; it must, however, be observed that he entrusted that duty to Mr. Pickthall, an old master mariner, who, we are told, had a large interest in the vessel, and who was also the father-in-law of the master, who was to take command of her. Mr. Thomas might therefore perhaps fairly say that he had left the matter in competent hands, and that he was therefore not to blame. Again, it was said that he was to blame for having led the surveyor to believe, when she left this country for Rio, that she was going only on a short voyage, and for having sent her on thence to Rangoon; but Mr. Thomas told us that he had intended her to return from Rio, but that not obtaining a charter there, he had sent her on to Rangoon, feeling well assured from the captain's letter, written after his arrival at Rio, that the vessel was perfectly tight and staunch, and that there could be no defects in that small portion of the hull which had been concealed by the cargo when she was surveyed previous to her departure. Lastly, he is said to have been to blame for having sent her to sea so deeply laden as she was. Mr. Thomas admitted that since he had had her he had sent her generally from this country with 950 or 960 tons of coal in her, or about 100 tons more than she had been accustomed to carry, and that he had done so in the belief that she ought to carry 50 per cent. above her registered tonnage. But, as Mr. Nelson very properly observed, it must depend entirely upon the form and construction of the vessel whether she can carry 50 per cent. above her registered tonnage, or whether she can only carry her registered tonnage. Ordinary cargo-carrying vessels do no doubt frequently carry with safety 50 per cent. over and above the underdeck tonnage, but not a clipper ship with fine ends and great rise of floor, built not so much for carrying large cargoes as for speed. Mr. Thomas' fault was in supposing that this vessel might be regarded as an ordinary cargo-carrying vessel, and in not taking proper steps to ascertain what quantity she could carry with safety to those on board. Whilst, however, we think that Mr. Thomas has been somewhat to blame in this case, it is not a case in which we are disposed to condemn him in the costs.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

EDWARD HIGHT,

W. B. ROBINSON,

C.C., R.N.,

JAMES KIDDLE,

Captain R.N.,

Assessors.

L 867. 1607. 150.—6/83. Wt. 73. E. & S.