Oldhamia Technical Specification

Sivewright, Bacon & Co. was formed in West Hartlepool in 1883 as both Shipowners and Ship Brokers, and were based at No.76, Church Street, West Hartlepool. When the Manchester Ship Canal opened in 1896 they saw the business opportunities and transferred their company to Manchester in 1897.
At various times they owned a number of Hartlepool-built ships, including Gladestry, Coventry, Oswestry, Daventry, Castleventry, Eastry, Empress, Mannibgtry, Lincluden, Palatina, Mancunia, Oldhamia and Lincairn.

Family History:

William John Sivewright was born at Hartlepool in 1863 to parents William John (bank manager) and Hannah (nee Stevenson) Sivewright. He started his working life as a mercahnt's clerk. William married Mary Jane Shadforth at Durham in 1887.

William died at Stockport, Cheshire in January 1919 leaving assets of £150,518.

William Charles Frederick Bacon was born on 12th January 1854 at Wivenhoe, Essex to parents William and Mary (nee Murrell) Bacon. He went to sea aged 15 and by the age of 22, having obtained his master's certificate (no. 19398) at Colchester in 1876, became master of the sailing vessel Esperanza belonging to William Gray. Retiring from the sea at the age of 29 he joined the firm of Sivewrights, shipbrokers, agents and shipowners of West Hartlepool. By 1881 he was living in Hartlepool. He married Amy Sivewright at Hartlepool in 1881 and, by 1891 the family were living at Chadwick House, Stranton. Amy died in 1900 and William was re-married to Charlotte Harrison at Kendal, Westmoreland in 1909.

William lost two of his sons to the war. Harvey was a 2^nd Lieut in the 7^th Battalion of the Manchester Regiment and was killed in August 1915. He is listed in De Ruvigny’s Roll of Honour. Edward was in the Royal Flying Corps and was brought down on his first flight over enemy lines on 31^st August 1917.

William died in January 1931 leaving assets of £ 120,315.

An extract from William's obituary in the Hartlepool Northern Daily Mail on 13 January 1931.

On the opening of the Ship Canal in 1894 the firm, appreciating the possibilities of the new port, transferred its business from West Hartlepool to Manchester, where it developed the Manchester - Montreal trade, now so firmly established by its successor, Manchester Liners. During the war Sivewright, Bacon sold its fleet with the exception of one ship, which had been captured by the Germans.

In 1902 Captain Bacon was appointed a director of the Manchester Ship Canal Company, and immediately associated himself actively with the company’s affairs, later becoming chairman of the Bridgewater Committee of the company. His knowledge and his capacity as an administrator were quickly manifested. It was during the war, in August, 1916, that Captain Bacon’s colleagues on the Ship Canal directorate invited him to undertake the chairmanship of the company rendered vacant by the death of Mr John K. Bythell. In accepting it Captain Bacon became the company’s third chairman since the canal became reality, Lord Tatton being the first and Mr. Bythell, who directed the policy of the company for nearly 22 years, the second. Daniel Adamson, strictly speaking, was the first chairman of the company, hut the work did not begin till Lord Egerton succeeded.

Harold, the eldest son the first family, joined his father’s business and for some years has been steadily assuming greater responsibility in the conduct of its affairs. Captain Bacon enjoyed robust health for the greater part of his life, but in the summer of 1927 had to undergo a series of severe operations, and although recovered in a way denied to most men of his years a good deal of the elasticity had gone and had to lake greater care of himself. Taking care had little attraction for one who spared himself nothing either in the interests of the great under la king whose affairs directed vet in the multifarious calls made upon him one public cause or another. He devoted a great deal lime to charitable causes, and no purse-strings opened more readily than his. Apart from the power of his interest, so readily obtained for any national or charitable activity, was much sought for the atmosphere of good will which went wherever did. He could preside over banquet with the same felicity he brought to board meetings, and in the quiet conversational tones of the plain straightforward speaker put everyone in good humour. He lived at Shawbrook Lodge, Burnage, Manchester for many years, but was at last persuaded to retreat before the advance of bricks and mortar and seek refuge in Wilmslow.

Master: 1905 Alexander Stuart.

From February 1904 until September 1905 there was a conflict that grew out of the rival imperial ambitions of the Russia & Japan over Manchuria and Korea which became known as the Russo-Japanese War. The major theatres of operations were the area around the Liadong Peninsula & Mukden, the seas around Korea, Japan, and the Yellow Sea. It was during these hostilities that the Oldhamia sailed from Cardiff in September of 1904. On arriving at New York most of the crew deserted and a new crew was taken on being told they were bound for Hong Kong. The ship sailed from New York on 13 March 1905 with a crew of 32 under the command of Alexander Stuart. She was carrying a cargo of 149,462 cases of refined petroleum (kerosene) with a value of $123,133 belonging to the Standard Oil Company of New York and addressed to Hong Kong.

On 18 May at about 10.45pm, beyond Hong Kong and seemingly headed for Japan, when about 125 miles WSW of Batan Islands in the Luzon Strait, South China Sea the Russian cruiser Oleg stopped the Oldhamia by firing a blank shot. A whale-boat from the Oleg carried a boarding party to the Oldhamia. On examination of the steamer’s papers the Russians were unhappy with the information therein and when, on interviewing the crew, they were told by a seaman that there were guns stored under the cargo, the vessel was arrested and searched.

The crew of the Oldhamia were transferred to the Oleg where, although they had to sleep on deck, were treated well & there were no restrictions placed upon them.  A few days later the Captain, Alexander Stuart, chief engineer William Stuart, the cook & steward were transferred to the hospital ship Orel where they were given first class accommodation. The Orel & another hospital ship were kept in rear of the battle fleet which was comprised of forty-eight vessels. On 27 May a battle took place between the Japanese & the Russian fleet. The four British men were sent below during which five hours of heavy gun battle took place when they thought they may be killed as the shot & shell came perilously close to the hospital ships.

By 28 May the Russian fleet was defeated and the hospital ships were seized by the Japanese. The four men were nominally released & transferred to the steamer Manshu Maru (ex Manchuria) on which they were taken to Sasebo. While at Sasebo their movements were more fettered as the Japanese were suspicious of them but they were released and arrived at Nagasaki on 5 June. The other 29 members of the crew, including the chief officer, Ison, had been transferred first to the Russian auxiliary cruiser Dnieper (ex Peterburg), which then was separated from the fleet. The Dnieper cruised between the Saddles & along the China coast and towards the Island of Luzon for a few days. On 4 June while off Chelang Point the Dnieper stopped the boat Ichang & asked them to take the crew on board but the Captain refused. The Captain of the Dnieper then hailed the Jardine steamer Waishing, which was nearby, and pleaded with her Captain to take the crew for the sake of humanity. This was done and the crew were landed them at Swatow on 5 June. With no wages and few belongings the crew remained at Swatow for over a month before eventually being taken as deck crew back to Britain. 

Meanwhile, an armed prize crew in the charge of Ensign Andrew Tregouboff had been placed on the Oldhamia with the purpose of conveying her to Vladivostok through the Northern Straits. On 20 May 1905, in thick fog due to poor navigation, she grounded on Urup Island. There being no means of refloating her quickly, being a long way from any Russian port and fearing that the steamer may be captured by the enemy, Tregouboff put the crew and provisions on shore and destroyed her by fire on 22nd May 1905. Soon after Tregouboff was taken prisoner by the Japanese and it was not known what had become of the Oldhamia until he returned from Japan on 12th June 1906.

Claims were demanded for compensation from the owners for the loss of the vessel, from the Standard Oil Company for the loss of the cargo and separate claims from the captain and crew for the loss of personal effects. The initial trial was held at the Libau Prize Court on 12 June 1907 which was to determine whether the Oldhamia had been seized as a war prize legally, and whether there was an entitlement to compensation.

The Russians claimed she had been carrying contraband of war as her cargo. This conclusion was arrived at because when they first saw the steamer the Russians claimed she had no lights showing which was why she was stopped and boarded. They had then inspected the ship’s papers but neither the charter-party, showing the direction of the course of the steamer, nor the bill of lading, from which it could have been determined the character of the whole cargo, were produced, a charter-party for the return voyage from Hong Kong for Batavia being presented instead. When she was stopped the steamer had left Hong Kong a long distance behind and was proceeding in the direction of Japan. Also a seaman of the crew of the Oldhamia, Christie Thater, had told three of the seamen from the Oleg that there were guns stored under the cargo. The search had produced no sign of guns but the cargo of refined petroleum, because naphtha distilled, was considered by the Russians contraband of war.

Under the declaration of the Russian Government of 14 February 1904 contraband of war included ‘All kind of fuel, coal, naphtha, spirits and such-like articles’ although there was no mention of a distinction on whether the naphtha could be distilled or raw. Papers came to light showing that the cargo was destined for Japan but the shippers and owners insisted it was for lighting purposes and not for military or naval use. Keeping the destination quiet was to prevent exactly what had taken place and not for any war related reason. The evidence, from both Alexander Stuart, his chief engineer William Stuart, and the Russians, appeared full of flaws but the conclusion of the trial was that the seizure of the steamer and the whole of her cargo had been liable to confiscation as a legal prize and therefore no compensation would be paid by the Russian Government.

In August 1904 the Standard Oil Company had taken the precaution of obtaining a formal stamped certificate from the Russian consul-general at Shanghai that kerosene or refined petroleum was not contraband of war. On the faith of this certificate the consignors and the shippers of these types of cargo felt it safe to transport to places in the theatres of war and to be immune from capture. It eventually had become evident that this had been an illegal seizure and in a letter from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce to the Foreign Office it was pointed out that this was a denial of justice by the Russian courts and could be viewed with alarm as threatening the general security of British shipping. The British Government had also refused to pay any sort of compensation out of public funds but the fight went on with the Foreign Office being accused of making a series of mistakes.

In January 1912 The Times printed the following:
‘A Parliamentary paper was issued last night by the Foreign Office containing correspondence respecting the destruction of the British steamship Oldhamia by an officer of the Russian cruiser Oleg in May 1905. The Libau Prize Court on 12 June 1907, found that the vessel & her cargo were liable to confiscation as prize on the grounds that the Oldhamia was conveying a complete cargo of distilled naphtha to a Japanese port, and that distilled naphtha was contraband of war under the Russian declaration of 27 February 1904; the Court rejected the claim of the Manchester & Salford Steamship Company for compensation for the loss of the ship, and of the Standard Oil Company for recovery of the value of the cargo destroyed.’

This judgment, against which an appeal was entered, was confirmed two years later by the Supreme Prize Court. The correspondence gives translations of both judgments. On 4 January 1910, Sir Edward Grey instructed Sir Arthur Nicolson, then British Ambassador in St. Petersburg, to inform the Russian Foreign Office that the British Government, for reasons given in the dispatch, entirely dissented from the finding of the Supreme Prize Court., A correspondence ensued. Sir Edward Grey suggested that the Russian Government should either compensate the owners of the Oldhamia or submit the case to arbitration; but in a Note dated 19 October 1910, M. Sazonoff definitely refused to do either. Both the ship-owners and the Manchester Chamber of Commerce protested against the failure of the Foreign Office to enforce the claim for compensation, and the latter suggested that, if Russia could not be made to pay, the owners might be given some compensation from British public funds. This suggestion the Foreign Office was unable to entertain, and pointed out that failing the establishment of an international prize court, there are no means of redress in cases in which the decisions of national prize courts are unsatisfactory.

By June 1913 there had still been no success in efforts to claim for compensation.