Wreck Report for 'Burswell', 1886

(No. 2847.)

"BURSWELL" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Newcastle-on-Tyne on the 9th day of March 1886, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captains PARFITT and DAVIES, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the supposed loss of the steamship "BURSWELL," of Newcastle, with a crew of 26 hands, whilst on a voyage from Newcastle to Genoa.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed, that when the said vessel left Newcastle on her last voyage, she was in a good and seaworthy condition; that her holds were properly ventilated; that she had sufficient stability; that, although the freeboard was slightly less than that required by Lloyd's Rules for a winter voyage, she can hardly, under the circumstances, be said to have been overladen; and that there is no evidence to show how she was lost.

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

Dated this 9th day of March 1886.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

WM. PARFITT,

T. DAVIES,

Assessors.

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Newcastle-on-Tyne on the ninth day of March instant, when Mr. de Hamel appeared for the Board of Trade. The managing owner of the "Burswell" was present, but was not represented by either counsel or solicitor. Thirteen witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. de Hamel handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. The managing owner then produced a witness, and having addressed the Court on his own account, and Mr. de Hamel having been heard in reply, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions upon which its opinion had been asked. The circumstances of the case are as follow:—

The "Burswell" was an iron screw steamship, belonging to the Port of Newcastle, of 1,860 tons gross and 1,204 tons net register, and was fitted with engines of 200 horse power. She was built at Willington Quay, on Tyne, in the year 1878, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. Joseph Temperley, of No. 1, Cails Buildings, Newcastle, and others, Mr. Temperley being the managing owner. She left the Tyne at about 11 p.m. of the 4th of December last, with a crew of 26 hands, and a cargo of 2,118 tons of coal, besides 605 tons in her bunkers, and in charge of a North Sea pilot, bound for Genoa; and at about 3 p.m. of the 6th of December arrived off Dover, where the pilot was discharged, and she proceeded on her voyage, and from that time she has not been seen or heard of. And the object of the present Inquiry is to ascertain, if possible, what has become of her.

Now the first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Whether the 'Burswell' was in all " respects in a good and seaworthy condition when she " left the Tyne on her last voyage?" It seems that the vessel was built under special survey, and was classed 100 A 1 at Lloyd's, being in some respects above the requirements of Lloyd's. She appears to have been always well kept up, and immediately previous to her departure on her last voyage she was put into dry dock, and was thoroughly overhauled and repaired at an expense of about 500l. We have therefore no doubt that when she last left the Tyne she was in a perfectly good and seaworthy condition in all respects, as regards both hull and machinery.

The second question which we are asked is, "Whether " the holds were properly ventilated, and the ventilators " so constructed, fitted, and arranged as not to be or " become a source of danger in the event of the vessel " shipping heavy seas?" Originally it seems she had no ventilators except eight double bollards with openings two inches in diameter. But about one year and nine months afterwards Mr. Temperley fitted her with 6 large ventilators, which were put into her under the superintendence of the Board of Trade officer at Cardiff. The foremost of these was placed just forward of No. 1 hatchway and went into the forehold; then there were two just abaft the main hatchway, one on each side to ventilate the main hold; two more, one on each side of the engine room casing, went into No. 3 hold, and the sixth was between the break of the poop and the large after hatch, and went into the after hold. The tubes went down through the 'tween decks to the lower holds, and were so constructed as to ventilate not only the lower holds but the 'tween decks, the lower portions of the tubes being six inches, whilst the upper portions were ten inches in diameter. The tubes rose about 3 feet above the deck, forming coamings, into which were fitted cowls standing some 3 feet above them. There was also a smaller ventilator with a diameter of 4 1/2 inches, which passed through the captain's cabin into the hold below. There seem to have been no ventilators to the cargo space in the fore part of the poop, but Captain Wallace, who had commanded the vessel for about five years, told us that in his opinion no ventilator was required there, for that he scarcely ever closed the hatch to that compartment. It appears to us therefore that the holds were properly ventilated; and that the ventilators were constructed, fitted, and arranged so as not to become a source of danger in the event of the vessel shipping heavy seas is proved by what Captain Wallace told us, that he never lost any of his ventilators, that he rarely if ever shipped any heavy water, and that during the whole of his command he never lost even a bucket from the deck.

The third question which we are asked is, "Had the " vessel sufficient freeboard, or was she overladen?" Nicholson, the master rigger, whose duty it was to superintend the stowing of the cargo and to shift the vessel's berth in dock, has told us that between 7 and 8 p.m. of the 3rd, after she had taken in the whole of her cargo, he went in a boat and took her draught, and found that she drew 21 feet 11 inches forward, and 22 feet 1 inch aft, giving her a mean of 22 feet, and that at the same time the water on the starboard side was just up to the bottom of the load line, and as it is admitted that the centre of the disc was 4 feet 6 from the upper line of the deck, that would have given her a freeboard of about 4 feet 7 inches. His evidence was confirmed by that of the pilot, who said that he took the draught, both forward and aft, whilst she was lying at the buoys in the dock ready to go out, and found it to be 21 feet 11 inches forward, and 22 feet 1 aft, giving a mean of 22 feet, and that the water was just lapping the bottom of the load line, which would give her a freeboard of about 4 feet 7 inches. Both-these persons stated that they had made at the time entries of the draught in their pocketbooks, which they produced. On the other hand, Mr. Williams, engineer and shipwright, surveyor to the Board of Trade on the Tyne, told us that in the discharge of his regular duties he went in the afternoon of the 4th of December in a boat, and took her draught and freeboard, and found that she drew 22 feet 6 forward and 22 feet 3 aft, giving her a mean of 22 feet 4 1/2 inches, and that the freeboard on the port side was 4 feet 4, whilst that on the starboard side was 4 feet 10 inches, giving her a mean freeboard of 4 feet 7 inches. It will thus be seen that whilst Nicholson and Proctor give her a mean draught of 22 feet, Williams gives her a mean draught of 22 feet 4 1/2 inches, but they all agree in saying that the freeboard amidships was about 4 feet 7, so that according to Nicholson and Proctor the total depth of the vessel at side amidships would be 26 feet 7, whereas according to Mr. Williams it would be 26 feet 11 1/2 inches. Now we are somewhat disposed to think that Nicholson and Proctor must have made some mistake in taking the draught, for Mr. Bone, the managing director of the Tyne Iron Shipbuilding Company, Limited, under whose superintendence the vessel was built, has told us that he finds from the plans that the total depth of the ship at side amidships is 26 feet 10, if measured from the point where the round of the deck, if continued, would intersect the side; but that if the freeboard is taken, as the Act of Parliament prescribes, from the level of the upper edge of the plank next the water way, it would be necessary to add an inch and a half, making the depth at side 26 feet 11 1/2, which agrees exactly with Mr. Williams' figures. But, be this as it may, it does not appear to us that the draught is after all of any very great importance, what we have to find out is what freeboard had she when she was in the Tyne Dock, and all agree in saying that it was about 4 feet 7. But to this would have to be added the rise on getting into salt water. Now Mr. Williams has told us that on the same day on which he took the draught and freeboard of this vessel he analysed the water in the dock and found it to have a density of 1014, for which he said that he would allow a rise of 3 inches, making her freeboard when she got to sea 4 feet 10 inches. Was this, then, a sufficient freeboard for her? There was at first a difference of 2 inches between Mr. Bone and Mr. Williams as to the freeboard which this vessel should have had according to the last tables issued by Lloyd's, but after these two gentlemen had conferred together on the point and had compared their figures they practically came to an agreement that the minimum freeboard which this vessel should have had for a summer voyage was 4 feet 8, for?? a winter voyage 4 feet 11 1/2, and for a North Atlantic voyage in winter 5 feet 4 inches. This, then, being so, and the voyage on which she was bound being a winter voyage, she should have had a freeboard of 4 feet 11 1/2 inches, whereas she had in fact on leaving the Tyne only 4 feet 10. Under these circumstances we must hold that when she left the Tyne she had an inch and a half less freeboard than is required by the Rules which have been sanctioned by Lloyd's and the Board of Trade. At the same time it must be remembered that by the time she was off Dover, when the pilot left her, she would have consumed about 25 tons of coal, her daily consumption of North country coal being, we are told, 15 tons, which would cause her to rise about 1 1/2 inches, her displacement being about 18 tons to the inch; so that if Dover had been her point of departure she would then have had a sufficient freeboard according to Lloyd's Rules. Nor can we shut our eyes to the facts mentioned by Captain Wallace that during the five years that he had commanded her she had frequently carried as heavy loads, once as much as 2,731 tons, whereas on this occasion the total dead weight, including bunkers, was 2,723 tons, and that she had always behaved admirably, seldom shipping any water on deck, and never on any occasion sustaining any damage. This, then, would lead us to think that, although the freeboard on leaving the Tyne was not quite as much as would be required by the Rules for a winter voyage, she could hardly be said to have been overladen when she passed Dover.

The fourth question is, "Had she, as laden, suffi- " cient stability?" Unhappily this vessel has never been inclined, so that we have no means of fixing with certainty the position of her centre of gravity. I have for years past endeavoured to enjoin upon owners the necessity of having their vessels inclined, so as to guide them and their captains in loading them, but up to the present time, I am sorry to say, without much effect. According however to the calculations which Mr. Bone has made, it would seem that her metacentric height, laden as she was, was about 1 foot 8 inches, which in his opinion would be a very proper amount, giving her quite sufficient stability, and at the same time not making her too stiff. We have also the fact that she has on several occasions returned from New York with a full cargo of grain, and if she had had any tendency to instability she would have been much more likely to shew it with such a cargo than with the cargo with which she was laden, and with empty spaces in the 'tween decks. On the whole, we are quite prepared to believe on the evidence before us that she had sufficient stability.

The fifth 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 the pilot left her off Dover on the 6th " of December last?" This can only be a matter of conjecture, there being no evidence on the point. The vessel was a good substantial vessel; the coals which she had on board, as well for cargo as in her bunkers, were not liable to cause either an explosion or spontaneous combustion; she had sufficient and not too much stability; and although the freeboard which she had on leaving the Tyne was slightly less than that required by Lloyd's Rules, it was sufficient when she had arrived off Dover, and when she discharged her pilot. What therefore was the cause of her loss is a question on which we are quite unable to offer any opinion.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "What was " the cost of the vessel to her owners?" Mr. Temperley has told us that she cost them originally 28,765l.; that was in the year 1878.

The seventh question which we are asked is, "What " was her value at the time she left on her last " voyage?" Mr. Temperley has told us that in February 1885 he valued her then at 19,000l., and we are not disposed to think that that was too high a value to put upon her then, although no doubt ships have since then fallen considerably.

The eighth question which we are asked is, "What " were the insurances effected upon her, and how were " they apportioned?" It seems that the owner of two 64ths refused to have his shares insured, but the owners of the remaining 62-64ths had insured their shares at the rate of 19,000l. for the whole ship, namely, 12,000l. on the hull, and 7,000l. on the machinery; 18,000l. of the amount was insured in mutual clubs, and the balance at Lloyd's. In addition to this, there were two policies, each for 1,000l., on freight, commissions, outfit, and disbursements. Now the freight which she was in course of earning was, we are told, 900l. It was proposed to send her in ballast from Genoa to a place called Porman, in Spain, whence she had a charter to carry a cargo to Baltimore, the estimated freight on which would be 1,170l., and from Baltimore she had a charter to bring home a cargo of grain to this country, the estimated freight on which was 2,034l.; the total freight, therefore, at risk was 4,100l., of which only 2,000l. was insured.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

WM. PARFITT,

T. DAVIES,

Assessors.

L 367. 2626. 180.—3/86. Wt. 408. E. & S.