Roumania Technical Specification

"ROUMANIA." (S.S.)

IN the matter of a formal Investigation held at the Public Board Room in the Post Office Chambers, Middlesbrough, on the 14th and 15th days of October 1881, before C. J. COLEMAN, Esquire, assisted by Captain CASTLE and Captain KENNEDY, into the circumstances attending the stranding of the steamship "ROUMANIA" on the Leman Bank on or about the 24th day of September last, whereby the said steamship was materially damaged, and the subsequent abandonment of the said steamship in the North Sea.

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 master, George William Race, and the chief officer, Joseph Arthur Crosley, were in default, and suspended their respective certificates for three months from this date, and recommended that a first mate's certificate be granted to the master and a second mate's to the chief officer.

Dated this 15th day of October 1881.

(Signed)
CHARLES JAMES COLEMAN, Judge.

We concur in the above report.

JOHN S. CASTLE,
Assessors.
H. C. KENNEDY,
Annex to the Report.

The "Roumania," official number 81,501, was an iron screw steamer of 1385.17 tons gross and 888.41 tons net register. She was built at West Hartlepool, in the county of Durham, in 1879, was rigged as a brigantine, and fitted with two compound direct-acting surface-condensing engines of 120 horse-power combined. At the time of her loss she was the property of Mr. William Gray, of West Hartlepool, and others, Mr. Gray being the managing owner.

She left Cronstadt for Rouen on the 18th September 1881 at noon, with a cargo of 1,200 tons of oats, her draught of water being, forward 16 feet 2 inches, and aft 17 feet 10 inches.

At the time of sailing she appears to have been in good condition and properly equipped for the intended voyage. She had a crew of 23 hands, including the master, Mr. George William Race, who holds a certificate of competency, No. 42,722, dated 18th of January of the present year. The chief mate, Mr. Joseph Arthur Crosby, also held a master's certificate, No. 03,906, dated in 1877.

At 1.15 p.m. on the 22nd the Hartsholmen Lighthouse bore E.S.E., distant eight miles, from whence they took their departure and steered S.W. by W. magnetic. There was a strong breeze at the time, with a high sea from the E.S.E. The ship was under all sail and the engines going at full speed. This state of things was continued up to noon of the following day, when the patent log, which had been set when the ship took her departure from the Holmens, was hauled in and showed 217 miles. The weather was at this time cloudy, and the master was unable to get observations. In consequence he made an allowance of 20 miles for leeway and current, and altered the course to S.W. 1/2 S. magnetic; this course was continued until 8 p.m., at which time the patent log showed 68 miles from noon. The engines were then stopped, and a cast of the lead taken in 20 fathoms, the bottom being fine sand. The master stated he considered himself 20 miles east of the Leman and Owers Bank at that time. Be then altered the course to S. by W. 1/3 W. magnetic, and proceeded again full speed with all fore and alt sail set; the square sails were taken in at 6 p.m. It appeared that the master was on deck from 8 to 12 p.m., and during this the lights of several fishing vessels were seen. Shortly after 11 p.m. the master saw a light a little on the port bow, which he says he could not make out, but continued on his course until shortly before 12, when the master ordered the man at the wheel to port and keep her away half a point. Shortly afterwards they ported another half point. The master gave an order to port another point, and he shortly after ordered the helm to be put hard-a-starboard, and told the second mate to assist the man at the wheel to get it over. This had the effect of bringing the light on the starboard bow, where it was kept for some little time, and then the vessel was brought round on her former course, viz., S. by W. 1/2 W., and again the light was on the port bow. At midnight the chief mate came on deck, and the master shewed him the light, and said he could not make out what it was, and told him he would see better bye and bye, and he was to report it, and also gave orders to be called at 2 a.m. in any event. The master then went to the chart room, as he states, for the purpose of looking at the chart. Having done so, he laid down on his couch, where he remained reading, until he was aroused by the vessel striking heavily.

The chief mate in his evidence stated that when he got on deck at midnight it was dark and hazy, and the master pointed out the light to him on the port bow, and said he thought it was a fishing vessel, but some time after the master had gone below and the light was on the port beam, the mate thought he could make out a flash; he, however, took no notice of it, neither did he report the circumstance to the master, and in about ten minutes the vessel struck. The master immediately ran on deck and ordered the engines to be reversed at full speed, and at the same time he discovered that he was on the Leman and Owers Bank. There was a heavy sea running which made a clean breach over the vessel, but the engines were put ahead and then astern with a view of trying to force the vessel over the sands, and at 5 a.m., it being then about one hour before high water, the vessel came off. It was then found that the rudder and stern post were carried away, and that the ship was making a great deal of water.

Rockets and blue lights had been burnt for assistance. At 7 a.m. two smacks came to them and agreed to try and steer her into Lowestoft, but shortly after the "Tawrida" of Liverpool came to their assistance and towed them from half-past eleven till three o'clock.

As the ship was quite unmanageable and in a sinking condition, the master of the tug cut her adrift. The ship was abandoned, and the master, mate, and crew landed at Lowestoft in the smacks on the following morning, the 25th. No lives were lost. The vessel was insured for 18,000l.

The following questions were submitted to the Court by the counsel for the Board of Trade:

1. Whether safe and proper courses were set and steered from passing the Holman to the time of the stranding, and whether due and proper allowance was made for tide, leeway, and currents?

2. Whether a safe and proper alteration was made in the course at noon and again at 8 p.m. on the 23rd September, and whether due and proper allowance was made for tide, leeway, and currents?

3. Whether the master was justified in keeping the vessel so long on the S.S.W. course, and whether in calculating his supposed position at midnight on the 23rd-24th September, the master made due and proper allowance for tide, leeway, and currents?

4. Whether the lead was hove after 8 p.m. on the 23rd September, and if not, whether its neglect was justifiable, especially having regard to the state of the weather?

5. Whether the master was justified in neglecting to use the lead at midnight, and whether the chief officer was justified in neglecting to use the lead between midnight and the time the vessel stranded?

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

7. What was the light seen and reported shortly before midnight on the 23rd September?

8. Whether the light was the Leman and Owers Light. and if so, whether the master and officers were justified in mistaking it for the light of a fishing vessel?

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

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

11. Whether every possible effort was made to save the vessel after the stranding?

12. Whether the master and officers were, or either and which of them was, in default?

The Board of Trade were of opinion that the certificates of the master, George William Race, the mate, Joseph Arthur Crosby, and the second mate, John Godfree, should be dealt with?

To these questions the Court replied as follows:

1. A proper course was set and sufficient allowance made for leeway and current up to noon of the 23rd, after which time no allowance whatever was made; and as the vessel drew towards the English coast she would take the ebb tide on her weather bow and be carried to the N.N.W. This was an error in judgment.

2 and 3. These questions are answered by the answer given to No. 1.

4. The lead was not used after 8 p.m. on the 23rd, and the master was not warranted in depending upon a single cast of the lead.

5. That inasmuch as the chief officer did not call the master he ought to have taken a cast of the lead.

6. Taking into consideration the fact that the master had seen a light nearly ahead shortly after 11 p.m. and had failed to make it out before leaving the deck at 12.15, and the speed of the vessel was 8 knots per hour, the Court is of opinion that the master ought not to have left the deck till he had ascertained the character of the light, and that the safety of the vessel required his personal supervision.

7. The light seen was the Leman and Owers Light.

8. The light was the Leman and Owers Light, and could not have been mistaken for the light of a fishing vessel.

9. It appears that there was a man on the look-out.

10. The vessel was not navigated with proper and seamanlike care and skill.

11. Every effort was made to save the vessel after stranding.

12. The Court is of opinion that the master and chief officer are in default.

The master it appeared allowed 20 miles for lee way and current, and that, perhaps, was enough for his first run up to noon; but after noon it is clear that he could have made little or no allowance, because he is found at 1.15 on the following morning to have been twenty-three miles out of his course.

The captain stated that he saw three or four lights on the starboard bow, and told the chief officer, who relieved him, that he believed they were fishing boat lights, but he was to make them out and call him if necessary, and to call him in any event at two o'clock, Now all the evidence called shows that when the master went below there was but one light visible, and that proved to be the Leman and Owers Light.

The master must have known that a fishing light could not have been seen at a distance of 8 to 10 miles, and this light must have been at that distance as the vessel steaming at the rate of 8 knots an hour was an hour or more in coming up to it.

According to the master's evidence he did not expect to make a light until he sighted Lowestoft, and it was impossible that he could have mistaken the Leman Light for one of the Lowestoft Lights, as he could not have expected to make the latter before daylight or about 6 o'clock.

The master ought not to have left the deck until he had satisfied himself as to the character of the light seen, and it was his duty to have approached it carefully and felt his way with the lead. With a doubt in his mind as to his actual position he goes below, lights his pipe, and reads. The chief officer had instructions from the master, which it was his duty to have obeyed; and as he thought proper to take upon himself responsibility which did not belong to him, he is guilty in the opinion of the Court of culpable negligence.

The Court was informed that the master was in his first command, and it regrets that over-assurance on his part should have brought him into his present difficulty, but such a disregard of his duty as a master mariner cannot be overlooked.

As has been already stated, the chief officer not only disobeyed the lawful commands of the master, but omitted to do the best for the ship when he by his imprudence led her into difficulty and stranded her.

The Courts finds both the master and chief officer in default, and suspends their respective certificates for three months from this date. The Court recommends the Board of Trade to grant to the captain a first mate's certificate and to the chief officer a second mate's certificate.

The Court makes no order as to costs.

The Court takes the present opportunity to remark that at certain distances the round white light exhibited by trawlers and other fishing boats is calculated to mislead mariners as to the character of the vessel carrying such a light, and would suggest for the consideration of the Board of Trade that all fishing vessels should be made to carry a red and a white light or some other distinguishing light or lights.

Dated this 17th day of October 1881.

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'.