Standard Technical Specification

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at West Hartlepool, on the 3rd of July 1885, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Vice-Admiral POWELL, C.B., Captain CASTLE, and W. B. ROBINSON, Enquire, Chief Constructor R.N., as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the supposed loss of the steamship "STANDARD," of West Hartlepool, with her crew of 24 hands, whilst on a voyage from Boston to London in January last.

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 Boston on her last voyage she was in a good and seaworthy condition; that she was not overladen, and had sufficient stability; and that her cargo was properly stowed, and that her loss was probably due to her having encountered either the exceptionally violent gale which prevailed, or ice, or icebergs, which were floating about in the North Atlantic at the time.

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

Dated this 3rd day of July 1885.

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at West Hartlepool on the 3rd of July instant, when Mr. Howard Smith appeared for the Board of Trade, and Mr. Tilly for the owners of the "Standard." Ten witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, and the depositions of three other witnesses taken at Newport, Monmouth, of two taken at West Hartlepool and Liverpool respectively, and of five taken at Boston in America, having been put in and read, Mr. Howard Smith handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Tilly then addressed the Court on behalf of his parties, and Mr. Howard Smith having replied for the Board of Trade, 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 "Standard" was an iron screw steamship, belonging to the Port of West Hartlepool, of 1,661 tons gross, 1,074 net register, with an under deck tonnage of 1,576, and with engines of 150-horse power. She was built at West Hartlepool in the year 1875, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. William Gray, of the Shipyard, West Hartlepool, and others, Mr. William Gray being the managing owner. She left Boston on the 21st day of January last with a crew of 24 hands all told, and a cargo of 1,812 tons, consisting chiefly of grain, besides 322 tons of coal in her bunkers, bound to London; and on the 25th was sighted by the steamship "Scythia" in latitude 42° 37' north, and longitude 51° west, steaming to the eastward, and apparently all well. From that time, however, 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, when the S.S. 'Standard' " last left England she was in all respects in good and " seaworthy condition?" It seems tha tthe vessel was originally built by Messrs. W. Gray and Co., the well known ship builders of West Hartlepool, under special survey, and that on completion she was classed 100 A 1 at Lloyd's. Mr. Jones, the manager to Messrs. Gray and Co., as well as Mr. Gladstone, Lloyd's surveyor, under whose supervision she was built, have spoken to the good materials and workmanship which was put into her; and we have no reason to doubt that she was a thoroughly good ship. Mr. W. Gray had always had an interest in her, and in the year 1879, he became managing owner, and from that time she has been constantly under the supervision of himself and his servants. We were told that in 1883 she underwent a thorough overhaul and survey by Lloyd's, and was retained in her class; and that in December last, just previous to her departure for Boston, she was put into dry dock for the purpose of cleaning and painting only, nothing else, we are told, being required to be done to her. Mr. Murrell, Mr. William Gray's superintendent, stated that he overhauled her before she left, and that her hull was then in a thoroughly good and efficient condition; and we have no reason to think that it was not so.

The second question which we are asked is, "Whether " the materials of which she was constructed were of " good quality; whether the iron was subjected to the " tests required by Lloyd's; and whether she was of " sufficient strength amidships?" Both Mr. Jones and Mr. Gladstone told us that the iron of which the vessel was constructed was of the very best quality; and although it does not appear that any tensile strain was applied to it, they have told us that they could see from the working tests, to which it was subjected in bending and punching, that the iron was of first class quality, and that, had it not been so, they would have detected it immediately, and should then have applied the necessary tensile strains to test it; but that it appeared to them to be unnecessary under the circumstances to do so. It has not been suggested, and there is no reason to think that she was not sufficiently strong amidships.

The third question which we are asked is, "Whether " the boiler seats were properly constructed, and " whether the boilers were properly secured?" Mr. Belk, the outside manager to Messrs. Richardson and Sons, Boiler Makers at Hartlepool, under whose supervision the boilers were put into her, has described to us the way in which they were seated and secured, and the assessors are of opinion that the work was properly and efficiently done.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "Whether " the boilers, furnaces, and machinery were in a good " and seaworthy condition?" that is to say, I presume, when she last left England. Mr. McLagan Brown, superintending engineer to Mr. Gray, has told us that he examined the engines and machinery in December last, just previous to her departure, and that he found them to be in a thoroughly good and sound condition. A witness, however, named Harper, who had made three voyages in her as fireman, and left her last Christmas, told us that on the last voyage one of the boilers leaked in the after part; but this was easily explained. it seems that there was a patch some 17 inches by 10, which had been put on the port side of the port boiler in 1882; finding, however, on the return of the vessel to this country in December last that it leaked, some new or additional rivets were put in, and the boiler was then tested with the full pressure of steam and found tight. And we have no reason to think that the boilers and machinery were not in perfectly good and seaworthy condition when she left.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Whether " the steering gear was of proper construction; and " whether the chains and rods leading to the tiller " were of sufficient strength?" The steering gear and chains were of the usual construction, except that they were connected with an ordinary tiller, instead of to a quadrant on the rudder head; but it is said that on the voyage which she made from Baltimore to Antwerp last year, one of the links of the chain had given way. It appears, however, to have been at once repaired, and on her arrival at Antwerp the rudder chains were sent on shore and thoroughly overhauled, and the bill for their repair has been brought in. Mr. Murrell told us that he examined them before she sailed on her last voyage, and that they were then in good and proper condition; and we have no reason to think that they were not so, or that they were not of sufficient strength.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "Whether " the openings in the decks for ventilation of the holds " were provided with sufficient means for closing them, " when coal was not carried?" It seems that the ventilators, being only 12 inches in diameter, were fitted in the usual way for ventilators of that size, with wooden plugs and tarpaulins to cover over them, and which could be put on in case of bad weather.

The seventh question which we are asked is, " Whether, when the vessel left Boston, she was in a " good and seaworthy condition?" It seems that the vessel had had rather a long voyage, having been 19 days going out, but it does not appear that she met with any damage; and there was a letter produced from the master to the owner, written on the day on which she left Boston, saying that she was then in a perfectly good and seaworthy condition. We have also affidavits from the persons who superintended the loading of the vessel at Boston, saying that the cargo was properly stowed, and that she was otherwise in good condition. The pilot also, who took her out to sea, stated that she was in good trim, that her engines and steering gear worked well, and that there was nothing unusual to attract his attention. We have therefore no reason to think that she was not in a perfectly good and seaworthy condition when she left Boston.

The eighth question which we are asked is, "Whether " the regulations of the Board of Marine Underwriters " as approved by the Board of Trade, and subject to " the Second Schedule of the Official Notice, dated " 8th May 1882, were complied with?" A certificate has been produced signed by Mr. Whitney, surveyor of the Bureau of the National Marine Board of Underwriters, bearing date the 22nd of January last, in which it is said that the cargo had been shipped under their inspection, and that all the rules of the Board had been complied with.

The ninth question which we are asked is, "Whether " she was overladen?" We are told that she had a cargo of 1,812 tons, consisting of grain and general produce, besides about 322 tons of coal in her bunkers, making a total dead weight of 2,134 tons. Now the vessel, during the time that Mr. Gray has had the management of her, has been usually employed in the trade between this country and the United States of America, having during that time made 16 voyages each way; and, from a list of the cargoes which she has usually carried, she seems to have had generally about 2,250 tons of coal on the voyage out, and about 1,923 tons of grain or other produce, in addition to her bunker coal, on the homeward trip, so that on this occasion she would seem to have been more lightly laden than usual. According to the notice which the captain left with the British Consul at Boston previous to his departure, as well as from the affidavits of the persons who saw her when she left Boston, she had a draught fore and aft of 20 feet 9 inches and a freeboard of 5 feet 3 inches. This, I may here observe, would make her total depth at side 26 feet, which is 3 1/2 inches less than that stated in the Specification, but we were told by Mr. Jones that the vessel had whilst building settled some 3 1/2 inches. I mention this fact as it will explain some apparent discrepancy in the recorded dimensions of the vessel. The water, however, at Boston was, we were told, somewhat brackish, so that, when she got to sea, she would probably rise about 3 inches, which would make the freeboard about 5 feet 6. Now was this sufficient for a vessel of her dimensions? We were told that she was a flush-decked ship of the usual three-deck type, having two decks laid, the upper one being of wood, whilst the lower one was of iron. She had a short monkey forecastle open aft, then a small deck house amidships, with alleyways open at both ends on each side, and aft was the saloon, with a wooden bulkhead at the fore end, and a hood covering the after wheel. Her length it appears was 271.7 feet, her beam 33.8 feet, and the depth of her hold 23.4 feet. These being her dimensions, Mr. Jones has told us that he has calculated her freeboard as well by Lloyd's as by the Board of Trade Rules, and found it to be as follows:-Taking, first, Lloyd's Rules, he stated that the moulded depth was 24 feet 9 1/2 inches, and the co-efficient of fineness .72, which would give, by Table A, 4 feet 11 1/2 inches as the proper freeboard; and, adding 3/8 of an inch for deficiency of sheer, measured along the centre line of the vessel, and deducting 3/4 of an inch for excess of camber, leaves 4 feet 11 1/8 inches as the minimum freeboard for a vessel of her dimensions and construction, according to Lloyd's Rules, for a summer voyage, no allowance being made for the deck erections. To this, however, he said we must add 10 per cent. for a winter voyage across the North Atlantic, which Would make the free board required by those rules for the vessel on her last voyage 5 feet 5 1/8 inches. Taking next the Board of Trade Rules, the co-efficient given in the tables for a vessel of her length for a summer voyage is 2.4, and this multiplied into the depth of the vessel's hold 23.4 feet, gives a freeboard of 4 feet 8, and adding 1 1/4 inches for deficiency of sheer, measured along the side, and deducting 3/4 of an inch for excess of camber, we get 4 feet 8 1/2 inches as the minimum freeboard for this vessel in summer by the Board of Trade Rules. For a winter voyage, however, across the North Atlantic the co-efficient would, Mr. Jones said, be 2.75, and this, making the same allowance and deduction for deficiency of sheer and excess of camber, gives about 5 feet 4 inches as the minimum freeboard for a winter voyage across the North Atlantic. Seeing then that she had, when she left Boston, a freeboard of 5 feet 6, we are not prepared to say that she had not a sufficient freeboard for the voyage.

The tenth question which we are asked is, "Whether, " as laden, she had sufficient stability?" No calculations of any kind were laid before us to show what amount of stability she is stated to have had either laden or empty. Some, however, of the witnesses stated that she was a wet ship, and that she rolled very quickly. But if so that would seem to point rather to an excess than to a deficiency of stability; and there is not a particle of evidence to show that she had not sufficient stability.

The eleventh question which we are asked is, "What " was the cost of the vessel to her owners?" Mr. Gray has told us that she cost them originally over 31,000l.

The twelfth question is, "What was her value at the " time she left Boston?" Mr. Gray has stated that, when she left Boston, she was in his opinion worth about 17,000l., and we are not disposed to question the value which he put on her.

The thirteenth question which we are asked is, "What " were the insurances effected?" We were told by Mr. Gray that, when the ship was lost, she was insured for the sum of 17,000l. It is proper, however, to state that the policy, under which she was insured, had been taken out in the previous February, when according to Mr. Gray she was worth about 1,500l. more, or 18,500l. The freight also, he stated, was insured at its full value about 1,930l. Before passing, however, from this question of insurance, I ought, in justice to Mr. Gray, to state that, although he at first expressed great unwillingness to answer any of these questions, saying that he did so on principle, he afterwards on consideration, and as he thought that it might be some satisfaction to the relatives of those who had perished to know that the vessel was not over-insured and that he had had no interest whatever in her loss, consented to give the required information. Mr. Gray further stated that his practice had always been to make a considerable reduction every year in the insurance of his vessels on account of depreciation, and that he never insured them above their market values; adding that he did not approve at all of the practice which is sometimes followed, of insuring vessels in the amount of the original cost price, without any deduction whatever, no matter how much they may have depreciated in value, or how long they might have been running.

The last question which we are asked is, "What, in " the opinion of the Court, from the evidence before it, " was the probable cause of the vessel not having been " heard of since she was passed by the 'Scythia' on the " 25th of January last?" Affidavits have been brought in from the master and mate of the "Ripon City," in which we are told that they left New York on the 1st of February, and that on the 7th of the same month, when in latitude 45° 30' north and longitude 48° west, they encountered fields of ice, and in attempting to clear them a hole was made in the ship's bows, that on the 8th they found themselves surrounded with large quantities of thick ice, from which, notwithstanding all their efforts, they were not able to free themselves until the 10th, and that then, finding that she was making more water than they could keep down, they bore up for Halifax, which they reached on the 16th, and where she underwent repairs before resuming her voyage. The captain of the "Ripon City" added that he had reason to believe that north of 45° there was a solid field of ice with large icebergs. Affidavits were also produced from the master and mate of the "Durham City," stating that they had left London for Boston on the 18th of January last, and that on the 27th, when in latitude 47° 19' north and longitude 44° 16' west, they encountered a most terrific gale, and that they were driven some 300 miles to the southward of their course. The captain added that, although he has crossed the Atlantic 100 times, he had never before experienced any weather so furious, and that he did not think that they could have outlived it, had it not been that their head was to the westward, and that it would, in his opinion, have been impossible to have run before it. The Court also cannot shut its eyes to the fact that in the cases of the "Fernwood" and the "Clandon" it had evidence before it that there were large fields of ice and icebergs floating in the North Atlantic, across the track which this vessel would naturally take, and at the time when she would probably be there. Looking at all these facts, and that there is nothing so far as appears either in the construction, the condition, the equipment, or the loading of this vessel to account for her loss, the only conclusion, to which we can come, is that she must have been lost, either from having encountered the gale spoken to by the master and mate of the "Durham City," or from having come into collision with the ice fields or icebergs, which were at the time floating about in the North Atlantic.

Lives lost January 1885:

Banks, A

Barber, H, donkeyman

Bearham, T, cook, South Shields

Blackburn, T

Carr, J, 3rd engineer, Blyth

Clark, J, able seaman

Darnell, Harry, master, b. 1848 Yarmouth, resided Lowestoft

Day, A, 1st engineer, Dundee

Elliott, J, fireman, West Hartlepool

Gough, S, fireman, West Hartlepool

Horsley, G, able seaman, Hartlepool

Howell, JG, able seaman

Kirton, JW, 1st mate, Manchester

Lawson, R, 2nd engineer, Sunderland

Leighton, George, able seaman

Mawer, W, steward, Hull

McLean, A, boatswain, West Hartlepool

McLean, D, fireman, West Hartlepool

Pratt, D, able seaman

Smith S, carpenter, Hull

Taylor, J, 2nd mate, Hartlepool

Varey, G, fireman, West Hartlepool

Watson, E, fireman, West Hartlepool

Willis, A, engineer’s steward, Hartlepool

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'.

W.H. Wise & Co. was formed with the purchase of their first steamer Woodlark in 1871. The Nellie Wise followed in 1872. The company continued trading until 1902 when their last ship, Bewick, foundered in September of that year.

Family History:

William Henry Wise (senior) was born in London in 1822 and became a banker in Backhouse Bank.  He married Dorothy Shevill in 1847. By 1861 the family had moved to Hartlepool and were living at Stranton, West Hartlepool. William (senior) died at Fern Villas, Stranton on 3 February 1881 aged 59. He left effects of £6,307.

William Henry Wise (junior) was born in 1850 at Darlington to parents William Henry Wise and Dorothy (nee Shevill). He married Alice Clarkson in 1884 at Dewsbury.  On the 1891 census the couple were listed as staying at Yewtree Cottage, St Briavel, Gloucestershire with their son and daughter. By 1901 William and Alice were living in Grange Road, West Hartlepool with their three sons and three daughters and by 1911 the family had moved to Seabank, Falmouth.

William died aged 84 at Mount Hawke near Truro on 27 April 1935 leaving effects of £4,775.