Wreck Report for 'Hornet', 1884

(No. 2195.)

"HORNET" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at the Sessions House, Westminster, on the 24th and 25th of April, and the 23rd and 26th of May 1884, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Mr. W. C. LANG and Rear-Admiral MORESBY as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the foundering of the steamship "HORNET" in the Bristol Channel on the 27th of January 1884, whereby seventeen 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, that the said ship was in a thoroughly good and seaworthy condition when she left Newport in January last, and that her loss was probably due to someone on board having unintentionally opened the seacock of the pulsometer, as well as the valve on the pipe leading to the tank, and thus allowed the water to flow into and fill the vessel.

The Court is not asked to make any order as to costs.

Dated the 26th of May 1884.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

WM, C. LANG, M.N.A.,

Engineer Assessor,

Assessors.

 

 

J. MORESBY,

Rear-Admiral.

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 24th and 25th days of April, and the 23rd and 26th days of May 1884, when Mr. Mansel Jones appeared for the Board of Trade, and Mr. Aspinall for the owners of the "Hornet." Seventeen witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade, and one by Mr. Aspinall, Mr. Mansel Jones handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Aspinall then addressed the Court on behalf of his parties, and Mr. Mansel Jones having been heard in reply, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions on which its opinion had been asked. The circumstances of the case are as follow:—

The "Hornet" was an iron screw steamship, belonging to the Port of Glasgow, of 618 tons gross, and 348 tons net register, and was fitted with engines of 98 horse power. She was built at Port Glasgow in the year 1874, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. William Pearce, of the firm of John Elder & Co., of Govan, on the Clyde, Mr. Charles Henderson, of the firm of Henderson, Colquhoun, and Company, of No. 9, York Street, Glasgow, being the manager. She left Glasgow on Thursday, the 17th of January last, in water ballast, and with a crew of 18 hands, bound to Newport, in Monmouth shire, there to load a cargo of coals for Marseilles. She arrived at Newport on Saturday, the 19th, and having been taken into the Alexandra Dock, commenced at 7 a.m. of Monday, the 21st, to take in her cargo of coal, and by 4 p.m. of the same day had completed it. On the following morning, at 2.30 a.m., she began to take in her bunker coal, and finished at about 4.30 a.m. The total quantity of coal taken in as cargo was 622 tons, and 131 tons 2 cwt. in the bunkers.

It seems that during the whole of Monday and throughout the Monday night they had had two engineers from the shore on board doing something to the engines, and whilst these men were so engaged, they observed between 6 and 6.30 a.m. of the Tuesday some water in one of the crank pits, to which they called the attention of the 2nd engineer. They thought at the time that it was some water leaking out of one of the tanks, and it is evident that they did not consider it to be of much consequence, as they left the ship at 7, and went ashore to get their breakfasts, and did not return to the vessel until 9. In the meantime, however, the water had risen considerably, and the master becoming alarmed went ashore to consult the dock master, who on hearing that the donkey connections were on shore advised him to get them on board, and to set the donkey to work, and with that and a hand pump endeavour to keep the water under; and he at the same time ordered her to be moved to the north side of the dock, where the water was shallower, in case she should sink. Whilst the master was on shore the water was seen to be rising in the 'tween decks, and accordingly the mate called all hands to put the hatches on, which was done. On the return of the master with a hand pump and the donkey connections, they were set to work, and although the water did not continue to rise, they seem not to have been able to gain very much upon it. At length, however, Mr. Noble, the resident engineer of the Alexandra Dock, hearing that they had a large pulsometer on board, but that no one knew how to set it at work, went on board her between 3 and 4 p.m., and having set it to work, they soon began to gain on the water, and when they had pumped her out, it was found that she made no more water. She remained at Newport during the 23rd, preparing for sea, but at about 3 p.m. of the following day, the 24th, sailed in charge of a pilot, who left her after taking her as far as Cardiff Roads, and the vessel then proceeded on her voyage. At 2 a.m. of the following day, the 25th, they passed Lundy Island, when the wind began to freshen, and by noon it was blowing a gale from the S.W., on which the engines were slowed till about midnight, when the wind having abated she again proceeded at full speed, and continued doing so until about 5 a.m. of the following day, the 26th, when one of the firemen came to the captain, who was in the chart room, and asked him to put back, telling him that the second engineer had let all the water out of the boiler, and did not know how to feed it again; and that all the firemen had voluntarily remained in the engine-room every watch, as the engineers were not fit to take charge of the engines. The captain, however, declined to turn back then, but on all the firemen coming up shortly afterwards, and saying that they would not go any further with those engineers, he at length consented to turn back, and on the firemen returning to their duty she was put about and steered for Falmouth. About half an hour afterwards they sighted the Bishops, and as it was then blowing a gale from the S.W., and the captain feared that he would not be able to clear the Longships, the course was altered for the Bristol Channel; and about midnight Lundy Island was sighted on the starboard bow. In about an hour afterwards one of the firemen rushed up on deck, and reported that there was water in the engine-room, the seacock of the pulsometer having been left open; upon which the captain went into the engine-room, and on his return ordered the 2nd mate to sound the tank, when it was found that there were from 10 to 12 feet of water in it. Upon which all the pumps were set to work; but on their becoming choked the water gained upon them, until at length the fires were all put out. Sail was thereupon made, and they commenced baling out of the engine-room, but the water continued to gain, the vessel all the time sinking deeper and deeper aft, until at length the hurricane deck was on a level with the water. At daylight the ensign was hoisted, union downwards, as a signal of distress, on seeing which a steamer called the "Bousfield" made towards her; but by this time the "Hornet" had become quite unmanageable, and when the "Bousfield" was within 300 or 400 yards of her she broached to, and two or three heavy seas sweeping over her, she filled, and went down. Only one person, a lad named Ellery, and a nephew of the captain's, was saved by the gallant conduct of two of the seamen of the "Bousfield," who, at the risk of their lives, jumped into the sea with life belts on, and having managed to get hold of the lad, just as he was losing consciousness, they were hauled on board the "Bousfield" by means of a rope ladder suspended over the side of the vessel. None of the rest of the crew were saved, but they all went down with the vessel. The "Bousfield" then continued her voyage to the Mediterranean, and having landed the boy at Gibraltar he has returned to this country to give his evidence.

These being the facts of the case, the first question which we have been asked by the Board of Trade is, " Whether, when the vessel left Glasgow in the month " of January last she was in all respects in good and " seaworthy condition?" We are told that the vessel was built in the year 1874, expressly for the Belfast mail service, with the object of running her with passengers and the mails between Glasgow and Belfast, and she was therefore extremely well built. She was bought in the year 1877 by Mr. Charles Henderson, of the firm of Messrs. Henderson, Colquhoun & Co., who sold her in 1881 to Mr. Pearce for the sum of 7,500l. She was then lengthened about 30 feet, at an expense of about 3,742l., and in September 1883 a further sum of about 3,043l. was spent upon her in providing her with new boilers and a new propeller. The total amount therefore which Mr. Pearce spent upon her, including the purchase money, was between 14,000l. and 15,000l., and we are told that at the time of her loss she was insured for the sum of 4,000l., besides 500l. on the freight. She was classed in the Bureau Veritas 3/3 1/1, and we were told by Mr. Lucas, the surveyor to that association, that he had surveyed her when she had had the new boiler and new propeller put into her, and had found her to be in good order. We have therefore no reason to doubt that when she left Glasgow on her last voyage she was in all respects in a good and seaworthy condition.

The second and third questions which we are asked are as follow: 2. "Whether the seacocks, valves, and " other openings in the engine room were properly " constructed, fitted, and arranged; and whether they " were so arranged that it could be readily discovered " whether they were open or shut; and whether they " could without difficulty be manipulated by a person " possessing the necessary qualifications for an engi- " neer?" and 3. "Whether the pumps were sufficient, " and in good order" The vessel seems to have been exceptionally well fitted with seacocks, valves, and pumps, and everything connected therewith; and I am told by one of the assessors, who knew her well, that she was as well fitted in those respects as any of the Atlantic passenger steamers. She had also, in addition to the usual pumps, a large pulsometer, available for pumping water either into or out of the tank, as well as out of the bilges, and which could be worked without difficulty by any person possessing the necessary qualifications as an engineer. Mr. Noble, on going on board, found no one there who could work it, but he had no difficulty in discovering the lead of the pipes, and in setting it going, and in pumping the vessel out with it.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "Whether " the load line disc was so placed as to give the vessel " sufficient freeboard?" I don't think that there is any direct evidence as to where exactly the load line was placed on the vessel's side. We are told, however, that when she left Newport she drew 11 feet 6 forward and 13 feet 10 aft, and had a freeboard of 3 feet 4 amidships, and that the load line was then about three inches out of the water; the load line would therefore be about 3 feet 1, or 37 inches, below the deck. Now, as the hold was 13.75 feet deep, a freeboard of 37 inches would be equivalent to about 2.7 inches for every foot depth of hold, and as the Board of Trade rules only require 2.2 inches per foot depth of hold for a vessel of her length, even for a winter voyage, we can entertain no doubt that she would, even if loaded down to her load line, have had a sufficient amount of freeboard. But as a fact, the water was 3 inches below the load line when she left Newport on this voyage; it is clear, therefore, that she must have had an ample freeboard.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "What " were the repairs which the vessel required at New- " port; whether they were properly effected, and what " were the circumstances under which a quantity of " water got into the vessel when at that port?" It seems that Mr. Colquhoun, having gone on board the vessel in the forenoon of the day on which it was proposed that she should leave Glasgow, found that the engineers had made no preparations for bearing. Some words accordingly passed between, and the result was that both the engineers left, and they had to get others in their place. Mr. Colquhoun and the master accordingly went on shore, and found an engineer named McDiarmid, who holds a second class certificate and who agreed to get the vessel ready for sea and to go with her as far as Newport, but could not, for some family reasons, go farther. They then went and saw Mr. Mackie, the consulting engineer to Messrs. Innes, Hay, and Company, who had himself formerly been engineer of the "Hornet," and by his advice they engaged a Mr. Morton, who held a second class certificate, to go out in her as chief at a salary of 14l. a month. At 11 p.m. the same evening Morton joined her, and they immediately started, Mr. Colquhoun accompanying them as far as the Tail of the Bank to see that all worked well. In going down the river however, Mr. Colquhoun observed that the brasses were working loosely, and he directed Morton immediately on his arrival at Newport to send for engineers from the shore to put them to rights. Accordingly, on the arrival of the yessel at Newport, a Mr. Arthur was engaged to do the necessary repairs, and by his directions two men went on board her on the Monday morning, and remained there all through that day and the following night, and it was by them that the water was first discovered to be coming into the ship. Now we have examined Mr. Arthur and his two men, and we are satisfied that nothing that they did caused the water to come into the vessel; their work was confined to the adjustment of the working parts of the engines, to filing down the brasses and the donkey connections, and they had nothing to do with the valves or seacocks. We must, therefore, look elsewhere to find out how it was that so large a quantity of water came suddenly into the vessel on the Tuesday morning.

I have stated that there was a large pulsometer on board, having connection with the ballast tank and bilges; and Mr. Colquhoun, finding as they were going down the river that neither Morton nor McDiarmid knew how to work it, explained to them, as well as he was able, the action of the different parts, where the pipes led to, and how to work the valves. Morton, however, seems not to have profited very greatly by the lesson, for it is quite clear that, when the occasion arose for using it on the Tuesday morning, he did not know how to set it to work; and it was not until Mr. Noble came on board between 3 and 4 in the afternoon that it was set going. But besides Morton, there was another engineer named Macgregor on board, who had been sent by Mr. Colquhoun from Glasgow to take McDiarmid's place. Macgregor had joined the ship at Newport on the Sunday, and McDiarmid had then left and returned to Glasgow. Now Macgregor, it seems, had served for some months in a vessel called the "Ferncliffe," on board of which there was a pulsometer, which we were told he was able to work; but it is clear that he was not able to work the pulsometer on board the "Hornet," for Mr. Noble and Thomas the engine fitter belonging to the Alexandra Dock stated that there was no one on board who knew how to work it, and that it was not until Mr. Noble went on board that it was set going. Mr. Noble also told us that he explained its action to Morton and shewed him how to work the valves, but he doubted whether he understood half what he told him, as he was at the time suffering from a quinsy sore throat.

These being the facts, let us proceed to inquire in what way the water probably got into the vessel on the Tuesday morning. The master in telegraphing to the manager stated that it had come in through the donkey, but it is clear from the evidence of Mr. Noble and the other witnesses, who have been examined before us, that at that time no one had any idea how the water had come into the vessel; the master's statement therefore must have been mere conjecture. It was said however that the 2nd engineer had been seen meddling with the cover of the donkey valve box, and it is suggested that he may then have removed either the cover or one of the valves, and thus let the water into the vessel; but, in the first place, the engineer was seen at the valve box on the Monday morning, and it was not until the Tuesday morning that there was any appearance of water in the vessel, after which it gained very rapidly upon them; whereas if the mischief had been done on the Monday morning we should naturally expect to have found water in the vessel on that day. Again, if the lid or cover of the valve box had been left off, and the water had thus got into the vessel, it would have been at once apparent to all where it was coming in, the valve box being about 2 feet above the stokehole plates. It appears to us, however, that there is a much simpler mode of accounting for the water getting into the vessel. It seems that just forward of the engine-room, or rather of the cross bunker, was a large ballast tank, which could be readily filled by the pulsometer, one of the principal uses of the pulsometer being to fill and empty this tank rapidly. On leaving Glasgow, the tank was full of water, the vessel being then in water ballast, but on her arrival at Newport the water was pumped out (how, we were not told; but probably by the donkey, as no one on board knew how to use the pulsometer), and the tank was then filled with coals, as well as the compartment above it, the lids or hatches being left off. Now, if one of the engineers had on the Tuesday morning, in trying to understand the working of the pulsometer, inadvertently turned on the pulsometer seacock, and at the same time the valve leading to the tank was open, it is clear that the water would readily flow through the pulsometer or through the valve box into the tank. Entering too, as we are told it did, at the bottom of the tank, it would gradually fill the tank and the compartment above it, which were full of coal, without being seen, until it ran out over the top into the cross bunker, and into the 'tween decks. And there is a fact mentioned by Ellery, which seems strongly to confirm this view; he told us that whilst the master was on shore, the chief mate, finding the water rising in the 'tween decks called all hands to put on the hatches, shewing that the water was rising up through the hatchways in the 'tween decks, which we might naturally expect if the water had been coming in at the tank. It may perhaps be said that the first appearance of the water was in the crank pit, but this may easily have come from the drain cock, which we are told was at the bottom of the tank, and through which the water would flow long before it had filled the tank and the compartment above it, and running into the bilges would at once find its way into the crank pit. But perhaps the best proof that the water must have got into the vessel through the pulsometer is the fact spoken to by some of the witnesses, that although the hand and donkey pumps were set at work early in the forenoon, and immediately after the return of the master from seeing the dock master, they were not able to gain upon the water until Mr. Noble put the pulsometer in motion somewhere between 3 and 4 in the afternoon, and after that the water was speedily got under. Now if the effect of what Mr. Noble did was to reverse the action of the pulsometer, so that, instead of pumping water in, it pumped it out of the tank, we can quite understand how it was that the vessel was so speedily cleared, and that she made no more water afterwards. Everything in our opinion points to the water having got into the vessel through the pulsometer seacock having been inadvertently opened by someone on board, whereby the water was enabled to run down into the tank; and this might very easily have occurred, seeing that there was no one on board who knew how to work it.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "Whether, " when the vessel left Newport, she was in all respects " in good and seaworthy condition?" After the vessel had been pumped out on the Tuesday evening she remained in dock through the Wednesday and until 8 p.m. on the Thursday, and during that time seems not to have made any water; and we have no doubt whatever that when she left she was in a thoroughly good and seaworthy condition.

I will now take the rest of the questions together, they are as follow:—

7. "What was the cause of the vessel rapidly filling " with water on the midnight of the 26th of January?"

8. "Whether proper measures were then taken to " ascertain that all the seacocks were closed, and whether " they were closed?"

9. "What was the cause of the water increasing? " Whether prompt and proper measures were taken to " keep it under, and how did it happen, that the vessel " made Water in the engine room, and after hold?" and

10. "What was the cause of the loss of this vessel?" The only evidence that we have as to what took place on board this vessel after she left the Cardiff Roads, and before she went down, is from that very intelligent lad Ellery, who was the sole survivor from the wreck, and who gave his evidence in a way that leads us to place full reliance on what he said. Being the captain's nephew he would naturally be much about his person, and therefore in a position to hear more than an ordinary apprentice boy. It was, however, no part of his duty to be in the engine room, or to know what was going on there; he could not, therefore, tell us "whether proper " measures were taken to ascertain that all the sea, " cocks were closed," nor "whether they were closed," nor "whether prompt and proper measures were taken " to keep the water under," nor how it happened " that the vessel made water in the engine room " and after hold." But what he did tell us was that at about 1 a.m. of the day on which she foundered a fireman rushed up on deck and reported that there was water in the engine room, "the pulso- " meter seacock having been left open." Until then there seems to have been no suspicion that she was making any water, but from that time the water gained rapidly on them. Upon receiving the report, the master at once went down into the engine room, and on his return directed the tank to be sounded, when they found from 10 to 12 feet of water in it. It was suggested that the leak may have been caused by the vessel coming in contact with a piece of floating wreck; but if so, we might have expected to find water in the fore peak or fore hold, but we are told that there was none there, whilst there was from 10 to 12 feet in and above the tank. The water in all probability came in in the same way, as we assume it to have done, when she was lying in the Alexandra Dock at Newport, namely by some person, who was unacquainted with the working of the pulsometer, having inadvertently opened the sea cock, and thus allowed the water to pass through the pulsometer or the valve box into the tank, and so filled the vessel. This in our apinion was the cause of the loss of this vessel.

The Court is not asked whether any .one is to blame for the casualty, or to make any order as to costs.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

WM. C. LANG, M.N.A.,

 

 

 

J. MORESBY,

Rear-Admiral,

Assessors.

L 367. 1967. 170.—6/84. Wt. 36. E. & S;