PART 2 CONTINUED.
A further letter one of many written to Samuel Plimsoll,
A letter written from Sir Henry Elliot, her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople with his house close to the water.
Dear Mr. Plimsoll, - you ask whether I have observed that English vessels were frequently over-loaded, I can have no hesitation in saying that I have constantly seen English ships pass so deep in the water that they looked to me quite unfit to face bad weather. Last year a considerable number of vessels past with a more or less serious list, showing that the cargo had shifted in the short passage from across the Black Sea.
Yours Sincerely, HENRY ELLIOT.
Sir Henry Elliot British Ambassador.
It wasn't just clipper ships sailing in the overloaded and listing conditions as described, this situation and losses extended to steamships with the Board of Trade showing a disinterest into such losses. One would have thought that after all the years and arguments to finally have a load line made compulsory known as the Plimsoll line painted on all ships, that the same thing could still happen to ships, now mainly steamers being lost.
The loading lines explained.
Plimsoll lines on a modern ship, L- R means the ship is in survey with Lloyds Register.
The Board of trade was the main body for investigating shipping casualties and appointing a board of inquiry in accordance with the sections 465/466/467/468 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894. The Board of Trade did not always act in the spirit of the law for reasons only known by them. There were many cases of ships lost with all hands and yet no inquiries were held.
WHY ?
It had got to such state that this same question was asked in the House of Lords in July 1908, (one year before the Waratah went missing).
Here, I now refer to Hansard.
It wasn't just clipper ships sailing in the overloaded and listing conditions as described, this situation and losses extended to steamships with the Board of Trade showing a disinterest into such losses. One would have thought that after all the years and arguments to finally have a load line made compulsory known as the Plimsoll line painted on all ships, that the same thing could still happen to ships, now mainly steamers being lost.
The loading lines explained.
Plimsoll lines on a modern ship, L- R means the ship is in survey with Lloyds Register.
The Board of trade was the main body for investigating shipping casualties and appointing a board of inquiry in accordance with the sections 465/466/467/468 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894. The Board of Trade did not always act in the spirit of the law for reasons only known by them. There were many cases of ships lost with all hands and yet no inquiries were held.
WHY ?
It had got to such state that this same question was asked in the House of Lords in July 1908, (one year before the Waratah went missing).
Here, I now refer to Hansard.
Lord Muskeery rose to address the Lords to call attention to the fact that the Board of Trade have not ordered formal investigations in respect of two steamships, the GRINDON HALL, and the NEPTUNE both given up with all hands.
In addressing the Lords, he said,
"It is a serious moment and well worthy of your Lordships attention. The tragedy of a missing ship and the unknown fate of her crew, is unfortunately, not uncommon, and it is an occurrence which we all deplore when we hear of it. In justice to the men who have gone to their doom in such away, and even more so, in justice to their widows, and orphans and other dependents they may have left behind, it is our bound duty to cause a public investigation into such disaster. "
Lord Muskeery went on to say;
"He was astonished to find the Board of Trade look at matters from quite a different stand point. If a ship runs ashore, and there is a chance that an unfortunate Captain of officer may be implicated and punished, a formal investigation is speedily ordered and proceeded with. But evidently missing ships receive by no means the same zealous attention by the Board of Trade. In their case all that seems to be necessary is a preliminary inquiry conducted in private by somebody nominated by the Board of Trade. Usually it is the Collector of Customs, who can hardly be deemed a competent judge on nautical affairs. We are denied an investigation in open Court, where all the witnesses obtainable who can give material evidence and be called to be subject to cross examination which would allow the Court to come to some form of conclusion. It is only by cross examination that the veracity of a witness and the worth of his evidence are properly tested, and preliminary inquiries, where ex parte statements only are obtained, and absolutely worthless.
The first case I wish to desire to bring to your Lordships notice is that of the steamer "NEPTUNE" which left port on the 1st of January last, and has never since been seen or heard of. Even though I understand that the Imperial Merchant service Guild has informed the Board of Trade that they feel the matter is one which demands thorough inquiry, and so far as I can gather, the Marine Engineers Association representing the certificated engineers of this country, are of the same opinion.
The Board of Trade, in reply to the Guild state that;
From the information before them concerning NEPTUNE, they do not think that any useful purpose would be served by a formal inquiry, but that they would be prepared to reconsider the their decision should any fresh facts of importance be brought to their notice.
(Pity those poor relatives and their feelings over the loss of their loved ones gone missing)
Lord Muskeery continued;
"It is the clear business of the Board of Trade itself to elicit as many facts as possible in connection with shipping casualties, and my contention is that they cannot do so without public investigation and the cross examination of the various witnesses who are able to give any evidence bearing on the case. The information supplied to the Board of Trade as a result of the private preliminary inquiry is, I presume quietly pidgeon holed, and the public are absolutely in the dark as to ay details connected with the NEPTUNE on her last voyage. Her Captain did not I believe have a Board of Trade certificate, though I do not mention this as having anything to do with the loss, I have, however, seen letters from a near relation of one of the leading crew members of the NEPTUNE who refers to different matters which seem to warrant thorough investigation, if only, as I have said before, for the purpose of quieting what might be unnecessary and unjust suspicion.
Lord Muskeery went on to say;
"He was astonished to find the Board of Trade look at matters from quite a different stand point. If a ship runs ashore, and there is a chance that an unfortunate Captain of officer may be implicated and punished, a formal investigation is speedily ordered and proceeded with. But evidently missing ships receive by no means the same zealous attention by the Board of Trade. In their case all that seems to be necessary is a preliminary inquiry conducted in private by somebody nominated by the Board of Trade. Usually it is the Collector of Customs, who can hardly be deemed a competent judge on nautical affairs. We are denied an investigation in open Court, where all the witnesses obtainable who can give material evidence and be called to be subject to cross examination which would allow the Court to come to some form of conclusion. It is only by cross examination that the veracity of a witness and the worth of his evidence are properly tested, and preliminary inquiries, where ex parte statements only are obtained, and absolutely worthless.
The first case I wish to desire to bring to your Lordships notice is that of the steamer "NEPTUNE" which left port on the 1st of January last, and has never since been seen or heard of. Even though I understand that the Imperial Merchant service Guild has informed the Board of Trade that they feel the matter is one which demands thorough inquiry, and so far as I can gather, the Marine Engineers Association representing the certificated engineers of this country, are of the same opinion.
The Board of Trade, in reply to the Guild state that;
From the information before them concerning NEPTUNE, they do not think that any useful purpose would be served by a formal inquiry, but that they would be prepared to reconsider the their decision should any fresh facts of importance be brought to their notice.
(Pity those poor relatives and their feelings over the loss of their loved ones gone missing)
Lord Muskeery continued;
"It is the clear business of the Board of Trade itself to elicit as many facts as possible in connection with shipping casualties, and my contention is that they cannot do so without public investigation and the cross examination of the various witnesses who are able to give any evidence bearing on the case. The information supplied to the Board of Trade as a result of the private preliminary inquiry is, I presume quietly pidgeon holed, and the public are absolutely in the dark as to ay details connected with the NEPTUNE on her last voyage. Her Captain did not I believe have a Board of Trade certificate, though I do not mention this as having anything to do with the loss, I have, however, seen letters from a near relation of one of the leading crew members of the NEPTUNE who refers to different matters which seem to warrant thorough investigation, if only, as I have said before, for the purpose of quieting what might be unnecessary and unjust suspicion.
Lord Muskeery showed utter disdain towards the Board of Trade.
The second ship that was mentioned before the House of Lords by Lord Muskeery was the GRINDON HALL owned by Messrs. Edward Nichol and Company of Cardiff, This ship I feel would never have been investigated if it were not for the fact that the Board of Trade came under scathing attacks from Lord Muskeery and other members of the house, obviously feeling the pressure the Board decided to act. The GRINDON HALL was a Doxford designed turret ship and was launched in 1905 and disappeared in 1907 after only two short years in service was still a relatively a new ship. The first inklings of the GRINDON HALL'S fate started to trickle in via newspapers.
On the 3rd of December 1907. Feared loss of a steamer; It is feared that the Cardiff steamer Grindon Hall, has been lost at sea with all hands in the Black Sea.
31st of December 1907, The British steamer Grindon Hall, which left Sulina on December 4th with valuable grain cargo for Glasgow, is regarded as hopeless. Nothing has been seen or heard of her and reports from Constantinople indicate she never passed through the Bosporus. The vessel was insured for 30,000 pounds.
9th of January 1908, A damaged lifeboat of the British steamer Grindon Hall, believed to have sunk in the Black Sea , has been picked up in those waters, it is practically certain that this vessel was lost about December 7th.
The Grindon Hall official number 119978 steam screw ship of the turret type, constructed of steel built at Sunderland by Messrs. William Doxford &Sons, Ltd.
length 342.2 Feet X Breadth 46.6 feet, with a depth of the hold from the tonnage deck amidships 24.75 feet. Powered by a triple expansion engine giving 313 HP (nominal), speed 9.5 knots.
Her registered tonnage was that of 2380.30 net tons, the ship was delivered to her owners on the 21st of September 1905.
As previously mentioned by Lord Muskeery, the general practice is for the preliminary inquiry to be held before the Collector of Customs, but in this case of the GRINDON HALL, the Board of Trade specially nominated the Stipendiary Magistrate at Cardiff, assisted by Captain W.B, Bigley as nautical assessor, to conduct the preliminary inquiry, and so did the solicitor for the owners of the steamer. Various witnesses attended for the purpose of giving evidence, at the outset of the proceedings, the stipendiary magistrate ordered the Court be cleared, stating it was only a preliminary hearing, and the shorthand writer was alone allowed to remain in his official capacity as shorthand writer to the Board of Trade. The solicitor for the owners inquiring whether he was to leave the Court also, the stipendiary curtly replied "certainly". the proceedings were then conducted in privacy.
It was later shown from the report emerging from the inquiry, that certain witnesses described how the Captain was branded as a perjurer and responsible for taking his own life and that of the crew members with him by sailing from Sulina. The Captain had made a declaration in writing before the British Consul, stating that he had loaded his cargo in accordance with section 454 of the Merchant Shipping Act, as was required by law. Once again Lord Muskeery said he had seen letters from shipmasters that took an interest in the case, and knew a great deal about the GRINDON HALL, but thought it improper to discuss it before the Lords. The inquiry determined that the GRINDON HALL had foundered in consequence of her instability as laden.
Law Courts and Town hall Cardiff where the Inquiry of the Grindon Hall was held in secret.
Law Courts and Town hall Cardiff where the Inquiry of the Grindon Hall was held in secret.
