Blackheath

Masters: 1878 Pinder: 1879-1885 John Nisbit

"BLACKHEATH" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of a formal Investigation held at the Public Board Room, Post Office Chambers, Middlesbrough, on the 6th, 7th, 9th, and 10th days of March 1885, before CHARLES JAMES COLEMAN, Esquire, Judge, assisted by Captains METHVEN and KENNEDY, into the circumstances attending the stranding of the British steamship "BLACKHEATH," of West Hartlepool, on or near Gotland Island, Baltic, on or about the 6th day of February last.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances attending the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons stated in the annex hereto, that the stranding of the "Blackheath" was caused by the careless navigation of John Nesbit, her master, and the Court suspends his certificate for three months from this date.

Dated this 10th day of March 1885.

(Signed)

CHARLES JAMES COLEMAN,

Judge.

We concur in the above report.

(Signed)

R. METHVEN,

H. C. KENNEDY,

Assessors.

The Annex to the Report.

The "Blackheath" was an iron screw steamer, built at West Hartlepool, in the county of Durham, by Denton, Gray, and Co., in the year 1871. Her dimensions were 233.8 feet long, 32 feet broad, and 17.8 feet depth of hold. Her tonnage was 1263.46 gross and 800.64 nett. She had two direct acting vertical compound surface condensing engines of 120-horse power combined. Her draught of water when leaving Swinemunde was 11 feet 6 inches aft and 8 feet 3 inches forward, she being in water ballast. She was in good condition, and well equipped with boats and compasses, and had recently been repaired, inclusive of new boilers, at an expense of 3,600l. Her crew consisted of 18 hands, all told. Her standard compass was a pole compass, and her steering compass was on the lower bridge and agreed with the pole compass on the north-easterly courses. Both compasses had been adjusted by Mr. Wood, a compass adjuster, sixteen months previous to commencing this voyage. The deviation cards were not put in; but according to the captain they agreed with observations taken by him on previous voyages. She had four boats, namely, two lifeboats, one jolly-boat, and one gig.

At 3 p.m. on the 4th February she left Swinemunde, bound to Revel. The captain shaped courses to the north-east, to pass within range of the Hoborg Light, on the south end of the Island of Gotland. The patent log was streamed at the time the ship left Swinemunde, and after she made 140 miles the weather set in somewhat thick, and the engines were slowed, and various courses were steered between N.N.E. and E.N.E. till 10 p.m., when a course N.E. by N. as a safe course was set along the Island of Gotland.

The ship was going at a speed of five knots, and no land was seen up to this time. At 3 a.m. on the 6th, the run by patent log from Swinemunde registered 268 miles, when the ship's head was turned round to S.W. by S., owing to the weather having set in thicker.

The last soundings were taken at midnight, and showed 44 fathoms.

The master wished to keep in these soundings till the weather cleared. At this time the chief officer was in charge of the watch, and stated that the alteration in the course was by the master's instructions (given previous to his going below at midnight) in the event of the weather setting in thicker. The ship was steered on this course till 6 a.m., viz., 3 hours, making about 15 miles. At 6 a.m. the ship was steered N.N.W. for one hour. At 7 the course was altered to N.E. 1/2 N., which the master considered was a safe course, as he could see nothing. The weather had been more or less thick during the night, and the vessel went at half speed. About 7 a.m. the man at the wheel saw the land and reported it to the second mate. The land was on the starboard bow, and the master, who appears to have been on the lower bridge at this time, ordered the man at the wheel to port, and the ship brought up three to four points. This was between 7 and 8 a.m. of the 6th, when it was daylight, and the lights taken in. The look-out man on the forecastle was withdrawn. The man at the wheel saw a steeple on the port bow, which he thought was a lighthouse, and reported it to the master.

The weather was clear enough to see a good distance all around.

The ship's head was brought to N.E. 1/2 N., which course was being steered when the mate relieved the second mate on the bridge at 8.30 a.m. The mate described the weather at this time clear enough so as to see for 3 or 4 miles, and sufficiently clear not to require a man on the forecastle to keep a look-out. At 8.40 the mate suggested to the master to put her at full speed, and which was done. A steeple was seen on the land, and the mate, in his evidence, said by looking at it with the glasses he made it out to be a church steeple. He did not see the beacon on the Laver Grund Reef till reported just before she struck. The beacon was about 30 or 40 yards on the starboard bow when first seen, and the helm being ported it was on the port bow when the ship struck. The captain was not on the bridge. She was going full speed at the time of stranding, when the propeller was knocked off. before the engines could be stopped. The wind, which had been light all night, at this time had increased. There was no broken water on the reef, but a swell sufficient to raise the ship, and after striking three or four times in the course of ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, she got over the reef into deep water. The stern post had been torn away. The boats were immediately put into the water, and a very short time elapsed before the whole of the crew got into them and left the ship. At this time the water had risen about two-thirds up in the after hold.

There was no water in the engine room, and the evidence was somewhat conflicting with reference to the quantity of water in the stokehold, but no water was above the flooring plates, nor was there any water in the forepart of the ship. When the master left, he thought there was risk of the ship sinking and imminent danger to life by remaining longer on board. He landed with his crew on the coast of Gotland. The ship thus abandoned drifted for several miles towards the shore, and stranded on a reef close to the main land some miles distant from where the crew landed, and from 1 1/2 to 2 hours from the time she was abandoned.

The captain on landing telegraphed to Stockholm for salvage assistance, and the following day a very powerful steamer arrived having pumping gear capable of throwing 2,500 tons of water per hour. A diver surveyed the bottom of the vessel—on the second day after stranding—and described it as being useless to pump her as her bottom was then knocked out. She drifted towards the shore in anchorage water of from 6 to 4 fathoms.

The Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court on the following questions:

1. What was the cause of the stranding of the British steamship "Blackheath" at Lavergrund near Gotland Island, Baltic, on the 6th day of February 1885?

2. Whether the vessel was supplied with proper and sufficient charts, and if not, who is responsible?

3. Whether the vessel was properly and sufficiently manned, and whether the watches on deck were sufficient to enable the deep sea lead to be passed along and watched at any time without calling up the watch below?

4. Whether a safe and proper course was set and steered on leaving Swinemunde, and whether due and proper allowance was made for tide and currents?

5. Whether safe and proper alterations were made in the course thereafter, and whether due and proper allowance was at all times made for tide and currents?

6. Whether proper measures were taken to ascertain and verify the position of the vessel when the land was sighted at 7.30 a.m., and afterwards on the 6th day of February last?

7. Whether the lead was used with sufficient frequency?

8. Whether the master was justified, having regard to the thick state of the weather, in navigating his vessel at full speed at or about 8.30 a.m., and afterwards on the 6th day of February last?

9. Whether the master was on deck at a time when the safety of the vessel required his personal supervision?

10. Whether a good and proper look-out was kept?

11. Whether the master used every possible means to save the vessel after she struck?

12. Whether the vessel was navigated with proper and seamanlike care?

In the opinion of the Board of Trade, the certificates of the master and chief officer should be dealt with.

To which the Court replies as follows:

1. The stranding was caused by the careless navigation of the ship by both master and mate,

2. The vessel was not supplied with proper charts. She ought, in the opinion of the Court, to have been supplied with the Admiralty chart of Gotland.

3. We think the vessel was properly and sufficiently manned, and a cast of the deep sea lead could have been taken without calling up the watch below.

4. Up to midnight of the 5th, proper courses were set, and afterwards various courses were steered along the coast of Gotland, but the ship's position was not verified by sounding after midnight. Casts of the lead should have been taken frequently, which would have indicated that the ship's position was too close to the shore.

5. No allowance appear to have been made for tide and currents, although an inset might have been expected on the coast of Gotland, the wind being from the south-east, and more particularly in passing across Faroe Sand.

6. No measures were taken to ascertain and verify the position of the vessel when the land was sighted at daylight on the 6th, and when at 8.30 a land-mark, given in the sailing directions as Faroe Church, was seen by the mate, and not recognised by him as such, it was incumbent upon him to have taken soundings and verified his distance off the shore, a shore having shoals before it, from three to five miles off the coast.

7. There was a total neglect of the use of the lead after midnight, and at the time when casts of the lead were all important, they were not taken.

8. The state of the weather at 8.30 on the morning of the 6th, justified the master in going on at full speed.

9. We think the master ought not to have left the deck at the time he did, as it is clear to us that he could not have known the position of his vessel.

10. There was no proper look-out kept. On a dangerous coast such as the coast of Gotland is, the Court thinks that a man should always be on the look-out on the forecastle.

11. It appears to the Court that the ship was duly furnished with all proper watertight bulkheads, with a watertight door in the engine room for letting down over the tunnel opening, and with pumps capable of throwing water at the rate of four hundred tons in the hour, and which pumps could have been brought into full play in two hours, and seeing that after the stranding there was no water in the engine room, nor in the stoke hole, nor in the fore part of the ship, we think that the captain made no effort to save his vessel, and left her without duly considering what measures could have been taken to keep his damaged ship afloat. There was but little pressure on the engine room afterbulkhead, as the water in the after hold had not risen beyond two-thirds. We cannot understand why some effort was not made.

12. Up to midnight on the 6th she was navigated with seamanlike care, but not afterwards.

The Court finds the master in default, and is far from saying that the mate is not very greatly to blame. It is impossible for the Court to say that in the present instance the master navigated his vessel with the care and caution he ought to have exercised; on the contrary, the Court thinks that he showed very great negligence in the navigation of his vessel, and showed too much haste in leaving his ship; but taking into consideration the fact that this, after a long service at sea of 37 years is the first casualty he has met with, the Court is disposed to deal leniently with him, and suspends his certificate for three months only from this date.

The Court makes no order as to costs.

Dated this 10th of March 1885.

(Signed)

CHARLES JAMES COLEMAN,

Judge.

We concur in the above report.

(Signed)

R. METHVEN,

H. C. KENNEDY,

William Gray established a woollen & linen drapery business in Hartlepool in 1843. Also having an interest in shipping he acquired shares in sailing vessels from 1844.

Some of the other shareholders included: Robert (draper) & John Gray (Blyth); Matthew Gray (North Blyth); James Robson (Newcastle-on-Tyne); Henry Taylor (Liverpool); James Monks (Durham); Alexander Robertson (solicitor, Peterhead.

Henry Taylor Purvis; John Callender (draper); Phillip Howard (master mariner); James McBeath (master mariner); James Smith (master mariner); Jane Hall; John Fothergill; Jens Christian Nielsen; William Coward; William Horner; Frederick & Joseph Edward Murrell; all of Hartlepool.

William also had shares in sailing vessels along with John Punshon Denton. Eventually the two formed a partnership in shipbuilding with their first ship, Dalhousie, laid down on 4 July 1863. In December 1871 John Denton died. A dispute arose over the company’s profits which was eventually resolved in 1874 with the firm becoming William Gray & Company. In August 1874 the company’s first ship, Sexta, was launched.

William Gray was born on 18 January 1823 at Blyth, Northumberland to parents Anne Jane (nee Bryham) & Matthew Gray. He married Dorothy Wilson Hall on 15 May 1849 at St. Mary, Lewisham, Kent. In the 1851 census the couple were living at 2 Marine Terrace, Hartlepool. By 1861 the census recorded William as being a linen & woollen draper & shipowner & by 1871 as a shipbuilder. The couple had five daughters and two sons. Their eldest son, Matthew, died suddenly of pneumonia in June 1896 aged just 41.

William died aged 76 on 12 September 1898 leaving effects of £1500422. His widow, Dorothy died aged 81 on 7 September 1906.

William Cresswell Gray was born in 1867 at Tunstall Manor to parents Dorothy (nee Hall) & William Gray. He married Kate Casebourne in 1891 and they had four daughters and one son.

William took over as chairman of the company after the death of his father. He was created a baronet in 1917 and was given the freedom of Hartlepool and West Hartlepool in 1920.

William died aged 57 on 1 November 1924 at Bedale, Yorkshire leaving effects of £417347.

William Gray (3^rd generation) was born on 18 August 1895 at Hartlepool to parents Kate (nee Casebourne) & William Cresswell Gray. He was educated at Loretto School in Scotland, and passed direct from the school in 1914 to the Green Howards, where he rose to the rank of captain. He was several times mentioned in despatches, but was subsequently wounded and taken prisoner in 1915. He returned safely in 1918 following the Armistice. He married Mary Leigh at London in 1929.

Following the death of his father William took over the company in 1925. The recession and interest on money borrowed for development had left the company in financial difficulties but this was overcome and shipbuilding continued. The company made a substantial contribution to the war effort during WW2. After the war the company held its own with shipbuilding and repair work. In 1956 William Talbot Gray, the third William Gray’s son, became a joint managing director. He was killed in a car accident in 1971 aged 40. The company went into voluntary liquidation in 1962 and closed completely in 1963. William retired to Orchard Cottage, The Drive, Egglestone, Barnard Castle.

William died aged 82 on 28 January 1978 at Barnard Castle leaving effects of £116121.

Ships owned by William Gray & Co. that were not built in Hartlepool are recorded below under 'a general history'.