Manningtry Technical Specification

(No. 7013.) 

"MANNINGTRY" (S.S.). 

The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. 
IN the matter of a formal investigation held at the Municipal Buildings, West Hartlepool, in the County Borough of West Hartlepool, on the 28th, 29th, and 30th days of November, 1906, before ROBINSON MURRAY and ROBERT LAUDER, Esquires, two of His Majesty's Justices of the Peace in and for the said Borough, assisted by Captains W. H. SINCLAIR LOUTIT and W. COWIE, Nautical Assessors, and JAMES SHAW, Esquire, Engineer Assessor, into the circumstances attending the abandonment of the British steamship "MANNINGTRY" of West Hartlepool, in or about Lat. 37° 51' N. and Long. 30° 44' W. Atlantic Ocean on or about the 6th October, 1906. 

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 abandonment of the s.s. "Manningtry" in the North Atlantic Ocean was due to her encountering tempestuous weather, in consequence of which, in her then deeply laden condition, she laboured and strained to such an extent as to result in her springing a leak in No. 3 hold, which the pumps of the vessel were unable to keep under. 

Dated this 30th day of November, 1906. 

R. MURRAY, R. LAUDER, Justices. We concur in the above report.

W. H. SINCLAIR LOUTIT, W. COWIE, JAMES SHAW, Engineer, Assessors.

Annex to the Report. 
This was an inquiry into the circumstances attending the abandonment of the British steamship "Manningtry," and was held at the Municipal Buildings, West Hartlepool, on the 28th, 29th, and 30th days of November, 1906, before Robinson Murray and Robert Lauder, Esquires, two of His Majesty's Justices of the Peace for the County Borough of West Hartlepool, assisted by Captains W. H. Sinclair Loutit and W. Cowie, Nautical Assessors, and Mr. Shaw, Engineer Assessor. Mr. Percy Corder, Solicitor, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Temperley, Solicitor, (of Messrs. Botterell & Roche), West Hartlepool, for the owners, and Mr. A. T. Miller, of Liverpool, for the master. The chief officer, second officer, chief engineer, second engineer, and third engineer appeared in person but were not professionally represented. 

The "Manningtry," Official No. 102715, was a schooner rigged British screw steamer built of steel in 1894 at Hartlepool, in the County of Durham, by Messrs. Furness, Withy & Company, Limited, and was registered at the port of West Hartlepool. She was owned by the Imperial Steamship Company, Limited, and mortgaged as to £8000 to Sir Thomas Richardson, John Houston, Esquire, and John Wilson, Esquire. William Sivewright, Esquire, of 14 Cross Street, Manchester, being appointed manager under advice dated 25th April, 1903. The dimensions of the vessel were as follows: length 314 ft., breadth 40.5 ft., and depth of hold from tonnage deck to ceiling at midships 21.3 ft. Her gross tonnage was 2845.17 tons and her registered tonnage 1828.31 tons. She was propelled by triple expansion direct acting surface condensing engines of 250 n.h. power constructed by T. Richardson & Sons of Hartlepool, in 1894. The diameters of the cylinders were 23 ins., 37 ins., and 61 ins., length of stroke 42 ins., and she had two steel boilers pressed to 165 lbs. per sq. in. The speed of the vessel was 9 knots per hour. She was fitted with steam and hand steering gear, carried three boats, two of them being life-boats, with their requisite equipment and was sufficiently supplied with lifesaving apparatus in accordance with the statute, and was in every respect well found for the trade in which she was employed. In regard to navigating instruments she had two compasses, namely, one Sir William Thomson's patent on the upper bridge by which the courses were steered and the vessel navigated and one aft before the hand steering gear. These compasses were in good order and were last adjusted in the river Tyne in 1905 by Messrs. Pickering.

She was also supplied with the necessary Admiralty and blue-backed charts. Before detailing the events of the voyage which forms the subject of this inquiry, it may be well to give an account of the repairs which were effected before she left the Tyne in August last. In that month she was docked at Jarrow in the mercantile dry dock, when the tail end shaft was drawn and replaced, her hull plating examined and painted, and was surveyed and passed by Lloyd's Surveyor. Mr. Robinson, the owners' superintending engineer, being present, and saw that the repairs were thoroughly executed; it was at this time that her free board marks were altered from 9 ft. 2 1/2 ins. to 8 ft. 7 ins. according to the new load line regulations. In regard to this, it may be noted that she was an after well decked vessel with iron bulwarks around the whole of the well deck, 3 ft. high, which were perforated with eight freeing ports, each having an area of 2 ft. There were also five scuppers on each side. This well-deck was where the vessel shipped the greater quantity of water, especially during this last voyage after she left Huelva. From the evidence before the Court it was hardly ever dry even in moderate weather, and the additional weight of water thus carried immediately over No. 3 hold, may have had some effect in causing the incessant labouring and straining which terminated with the vessel being abandoned in a sinking condition. 

The "Manningtry" left the Tyne laden with a full cargo of coal on the 13th August last bound for Genoa, where she discharged her cargo and then proceeded to Huelva to load a full cargo of copper ore, she left that port on the 25th September last bound for Philadelphia, under the command of Captain E. Lawson with a crew of 26 hands all told. Her mean draught of water was 22 ft. 6 1/2 ins., equivalent of 4610 tons of dead weight, being at least 195 tons in excess of what she had ever before carried. The centre of her disc being just level with the water. In regard to the stowage of this cargo, it appears from the evidence that the copper ore was tipped into the vessel's holds direct from the trucks, and was trimmed down from time to time as required; no measures were taken to secure it from shifting, the vessel being constructed with a middle line bulkhead, besides six transverse bulkheads extending from the upper deck to the ceilings. Her water ballast tanks extending the full length of her flooring aggregating a carrying capacity of 523 tons.

After leaving Huelva all went well, moderate weather being experienced until about 9 p.m. of the 29th September, when the vessel was about twenty miles to the west of Santa Maria; the weather then changed for the worse until it culminated in a gale, necessitating the vessel being hove to, head to wind and sea early in the morning of the 30th September. During this day the gale increased in violence, some heavy seas came aboard, smashing the jolly boat, tearing away the skids and breaking the after steering wheel, besides washing the tarpaulins off from parts of No. 3 and No. 4 hatches and tearing away a ventilator's cowl head in the centre of the deck over No. 3 hold. This ventilator socket was soon plugged, and the tarpaulins secured, and before midnight, the gale moderated, and shortly after midnight the vessel was put back on her course. It is to be noted that no amount of water of any consequence was up to this time found in the vessel's holds. On the 2nd of October the wind commenced freshening up again from the west, causing the vessel to ship heavy water principally on the well deck and strain a good deal, but on the 3rd and 4th the weather moderated and the vessel made good progress. At about 3 a.m. on the 4th October, the wind being then light and the weather fine, though the vessel was rolling heavily and filling her well deck with water, a report was made to the second officer by the third engineer that No. 3 hold was leaking badly, and on sounding the wells 9 ft. 3 ins. of water was found.

The master and chief engineer were called, and all available pumps were put on to reduce the water but without success, and at 10 a.m. finding 11 ft. 10 ins. of water in the hold, holes were bored in No. 3 bulkhead to let the water through into the engine room. The engines were then stopped, and efforts were made to place a tarpaulin over the leak from the outside of the vessel; the ballast donkey pump being kept going during this time. At 1.30 p.m. of the 4th, being unable to stop the leak with the tarpaulin and finding the pumps unable to deal with the water, the master determined to put back to the Azores. From this time to noon of the 5th October the vessel continued on her course towards the Azores, the weather being bad with high seas continually breaking on board and flooding the well deck. The water in No. 3 hold still gaining on the pumps, though the bilge injection was now constantly on to aid them. Towards midnight the weather moderated, and by 6 a.m. on the 6th October the weather was much finer with less sea, though the water was still gaining on the pumps, there being at this time 14 ft. 9 ins. in No. 3 hold and 2 ft. 7 ins. in No. 4 hold, the vessel still labouring heavily and taking in much water on the well deck.

At 6 p.m. of the above date the water had risen in No. 3 hold to 15 ft. 9 ins., and was also finding its way from there into No. 4 tank, which indicated 1 ft. 6 ins., and 3 ft. 1 in. in No. 4 well. Shortly after this, at about 6.30 p.m., a steamer, which proved to be the s.s. "Vera," was sighted, and, in response to distress signals, steamed close to, and by request remained standing by. At about 8.30 p.m. the master of the "Manningtry" determined to abandon his vessel, her position then being hopeless, the after part of the upper deck being then nearly awash, and 21 to 22 ft. of water in No. 3 hold, the engine-room platform being under water. He therefore with his crew went on board the "Vera," which vessel landed them at Fayal at 1 p.m. the following day. In seeking for a direct cause to account for this leak in No. 3 hold, notice may be taken of the evidence given by the engineers to the effect that they found the brass seats and valves of the pumps were more or less pitted, which they attributed to the action of the water from No. 3 hold being impregnated with the copper ore, but such pitting did not affect the efficiency of the pumps or have any relation to the leakage. The Court has therefore come to the conclusion that the leak in No. 3 hold which led to the abandonment of the vessel was caused by the violent straining to which she was subjected in tempestuous weather when in a deeply laden condition thereby possibly starting the rivets and seams in that locality. 

At the conclusion of the evidence, Mr. Corder submitted the following questions for the opinion of the Court: 

(1) When the vessel left Huelva on or about the 25th September last, 
(a) Was she in good and seaworthy condition as regards hull and equipments? 
(b) Was she overladen? 
(c) Was her cargo properly stowed and secured from shifting, and were the weights so distributed as to make the ship easy in a seaway? 
(d) Was she upright? 
(2) What was the cause of the damage sustained by the vessel on the 30th September last? 
(3) When did the vessel first commence to make an unusual quantity of water? What was the position and cause of the leak or leaks, and were prompt and proper measures taken by the master, officers, and engineers to keep the water under? 
(4) Was every possible effort made by the master, officers, and engineers to save the vessel? 
(5) Was she prematurely abandoned? 
(6) Was the vessel navigated with proper and seamanlike care? 
(7) Was the abandonment of the s.s. "Manningtry" caused by the wrongful act or default of the master, chief and second officers, and chief, second and third engineers, or of any of them? 
(8) What was the cost of the vessel to her owners? What was her value at the time she last left the United Kingdom, and what insurances were effected and how were they apportioned? 

Mr. Temperley having addressed the Court on behalf of the owners, and Mr. Miller on behalf of the master, the Court replied to the questions as follows: 

(1) When the vessel left Huelva, on or about the 25th September last, 
(a) She was in good and seaworthy condition as regards hull and equipments; 
(b) She was not overladen according to the new free board regulations; 
(c) Her cargo appears to have been properly stowed and trimmed, but not secured from shifting, otherwise than by the iron middle line bulk head, and the weights were so distributed as to make the ship easy in a seaway; 
(d) She was upright. 
(2) The damage sustained by the vessel on the 30th September last, was caused by the heavy gales and sea she encountered when in a deeply laden condition. 
(3) An unusual amount of water was first discovered in No. 3 hold, at about 3 a.m. on the 4th October last. The position or the cause of the leak or leaks could not be found. Prompt and proper measures were taken by the master, officers, and engineers to keep the water under. 
(4) Every possible effort was made by the master, officers, and engineers to save the vessel. 
(5) She was not prematurely abandoned. 
(6) The vessel was navigated with proper and seamanlike care. 
(7) The abandonment of the s.s. "Manningtry" was not caused by the wrongful act or default of the master, chief and second officers and chief, second and third engineers, or of any of them. 
(8) The cost of the vessel to her owners was £19,968. Her value at the time she last left the United Kingdom was £20,000. The insurances effected were, on the vessel £22,000 (which a month before her loss was reduced to £20,000), on outfit and stores £1,000, on freight £2,500, and on the insurance premium £1,000, subject to a reduction of one-twelfth each month. 

R. MURRAY, R. LAUDER, Justices. We concur. 
W. H. SINCLAIR LOUTIT, W. COWIE, JAMES SHAW, Engineer, Assessors. 
(Issued in London by the Board of Trade on the 28th day of December, 1906.) 

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.