Glasgow And Ships Of The Clyde

THE LOSS OF THE CHUSAN - Board Of Trade Report

From: Ardrossan & Saltcoats Herald dated Friday 12th November 1874

THE LOSS OF THE ?CHUSAN?

Board Of Trade Report

Report of the court of inquiry held at Ardrossan, under the order of the Board of Trade, before Messrs William Mutter and Anthony Mack, Justice of the Peace for the county of Ayr, and Captains Charles E Pryce and C.P. Wilson, nautical assessors into the circumstances attending the loss of the paddle steamer ?CHUSAN?, at the entrance of Ardrossan Harbour, on Oct. 21, 1874, has been issued. After describing the construction of the vessel, and narrating the story of its voyage and shipwreck, the report proceeds to say - After careful consideration of the evidence, as well as of the written opinions of the professional experts sent down by the Board of Trade, it appears to the Court that the following questions arise - 1st, As far as the vessel is concerned, independently of the model, was she faithfully built and the materials good? -- The Court has no hesitation in replying in the affirmative. 2d, Was a vessel of her peculiar model and dimensions safe and seaworthy for a passage to China at this season of the year? -- The Court after directing special attention to this point, reply emphatically, no. 3d, Was the master or pilot responsible for the safe navigation of the vessel from Waterford to the place where she was proceeding? -- The master. The pilot was on board merely for the master?s convenience, but had no responsibility. 4th, Was every precaution adopted for the safe navigation of the vessel on her return passage from Waterford? -- No. No sails were bent or gear rove. They had been unbent and stowed away on the forepeak at Waterford. The Court considers that under the circumstances immediately preceding the loss of the vessel her sails would in all probability have been of material assistance, especially of Holy Island, where she had to be slowed, on a dark night in a gale of wind, to bend them, under circumstances in which it was only found practicable to bend the forestay sails. 5th, After arriving at the foregoing conclusion, to what is the loss of the vessel to be attributed? -- It is quite clear to the Court that the ?CHUSAN? was properly navigated up to the Pladda. They are, however, inclined to doubt the correctness of the estimated distance of those lights, which seem to have been lost sight of with unreasonable quickness. They are also disposed to question the estimated distance of Holy Island, taking into consideration the description of the area, with the wind from the NW. Between Pladda and Holy island, the vessel is described as having griped badly. The weather being thick and the pilot afraid of the weather shore, the engines were allowed to bend the forestay sail to keep her out of the wind. The Court are of the opinion that instead of slowing the engines to bend sails off Holy Island the distance of which must, they think, have been much greater than estimated, under circumstances during which she must have drifted rapidly to leeward, that had the vessel been steered directly for that had the vessel been steered directly for the Arran coast, which is bold to approach, she would very soon have got into smooth water, when the helm would have resumed its proper control over her. The Court is of the opinion that it was a mistake to adopt this course for a vessel with such a slight hold of the water; and with such immense paddle boxes and exposed hull surfaces as she had must of necessity have held an enormous amount of wind and drifted to leeward with great rapidity, the drift being also increased by her want of way through the water, which was greatly neutralised by the helm being carried hard over and smothering of the lee wheel, owing to the list of the vessel to the violence of the gale. This, in the opinion of the Court, is an assemblage of facts quite enough to account for her subsequent loss, and which was unfortunately, attended by that of the lives of nine of her crew. The Court, however, do not wish to imply any neglect on the part of Capt. Johnson. It is proved that he personally attended to his vessel all night, and her loss to be attributed to

An error in judgement, to which any one might have been liable under similar circumstances. A loss of nine lives occurred at the wreck of this vessel. Several of them however arose from circumstances beyond the control of any one. The second mate was washed overboard before the vessel struck at all. Another man lost his life in attempting to jump on the pier head as the fore end of the vessel passed it. There remain seven to account for; of these the court is confident that at least two might have been saved had proper means been adopted on shore. The remaining five are believed to have lost their lives in attempting to swim to the shore. There is no evidence however, to
show whither they made this attempt deliberately or were washed overboard soon after the vessel struck. On this point the Court does not feel itself in a position to decide. They believe however, that had the lifeboat and rocked apparatus been promptly and properly made use of, at least the two lives above referred to might have been saved. It appears from the evidence that both the means of saving life were under the supervision
and management of the coastguard, of whom there are five stationed at Ardrossan. Of these three were absent on duty on board H.M. Ship ?AURORA? going through annual drill; one was absent at Lamlash, and one, alone remained at Ardrossan, viz, Henry Lipscombe, commissioned boatman, who was the second coxswain of the lifeboat. He stated in evidence that on being informed of the wreck, ?I did not look at the wreck at all, but at once ran for the keys of the lifeboat house?. There is no doubt whatever in the mind of the Court that had the rocket apparatus been called into action instead of the lifeboat, in all human probability the two lives referred to, in addition to the sixth subsequently saved by the lifeboat as well as some of those saved by the tug, might with comparative ease have been safely landed at half past seven in the morning. That this was not done is clearly due to Lipscombe, who states in evidence ?My attention was fully directed to the lifeboat, and it did not occur to me to send for the rocket apparatus or to call the volunteers?. In consequence of the darkness and the early hour of morning only one of the volunteers company belonging to the rocket apparatus heard of the wreck and at an hour when it was too late to use it.

It was subsequently ordered out by the Receiver of Wreck, but only arrived at the pier head when the lifeboat was taking off the last of the survivors. The absence of the rocket apparatus is fully accounted for. The delay in launching the lifeboat is also to a certain extent due to Lipscombe, who, instead of taking effectual means to arouse the family of the first coxswain, who is also a coastguard?s man, simply knocked at the window two or three times, and getting no response ran to get the duplicate key which was kept some distance off. The delay that arose before the lifeboat got to the wreck was partially caused by the inability to pull the boat out of harbour against so violent a

gale, and partially by the tug having to pump out the water she had shipped when off at the wreck on her first trip, and to stoke her fires to get a good head of steam. The Court are of opinion that the miscarriage of the means of saving life on this painful occasion arose from their both being in charge of the coastguard, whoa re subject to calls of duties in various placed. The Court therefore desires to suggest to the Board of Trade the extreme desirability of the rocket apparatus and the lifeboat - both truly important and useful appliances - being placed under entirely distinct and separate control, so as to ensure efficient management under all circumstances, and also a healthy and friendly competition. In conclusion, the Court desires to bring to the notice of the Board of Trade an episode that occurred on the morning of the wreck, which reflects infinite credit on those concerned. Some ship carpenters seeing the difficulty the lifeboat crew were labouring under in pulling against the wind endeavoured to assist them by running a line, by means of a small boat, from the Montgomerie Pier head, towards the lifeboat. This they failed in doing, in consequence of the line not being long enough. Not deterred by this failure, they determined to pull outside the harbour to the assistance of some of the crew, who had been struggling in the waves, but not finding any one they pulled out to the wreck and made several gallant but ineffectual efforts to rescue a man who was in a dangerous position at the taffrail. They twice got hold of him, and each time had to let him go owing to the heavy sea, and not until their boat was half full of water and nearly swamped, did they desist from their praiseworthy efforts, which was all the more remarkable from the diminutive size of their boat, viz, a four oared skiff of only 18 feet in length. The Court desire to submit the names of those four men to the Board of Trade - John Templeton, ship carpenter, Ardrossan; Gavin Kean, ship carpenter, Ardrossan; Archibald Boyd, carpenter, Ardrossan; Patrick Mackay, pig iron labourer, Ardrossan; and to recommend them for reward as an acknowledgment of their conspicuous and gallant efforts to save life.

Wm. Mutter, J.P.
Anthony Mack, J.P.

We concur in the foregoing report.

Chas. P. Wilson} Nautical
Chas. E Pryce } Assessors

The report of the Board of Trade surveyors upon the structure of the ?CHUSAN?, made by direction of the Court. It states that the steamer appears to have been of the following dimensions - Length between perpendiculars, 300 ft; breadth, moulded 50ft; depth, moulded, 13ft; depth of hold to top of floors amidships, 11ft 3in; depth of hold to top of floors at bilge keelson, 12ft; gross tonnage, Customs measurement, 1381.13.! The bottom of the vessel is of the Hersch patented form, according to which the bilges at each side descend to lie in the same horizontal line with the lower edge of the bar keel. To enable the Court to realise what seemed to be abnormal in construction of this vessel we explained that according to accepted rules of construction of sea going steamers an iron hull is said to be extra length and to require extra strengthening if that length exceeds about eleven times her depth. Now the depth of the ?CHUSAN? is 13ft, moulded, and eleven times 13 gives 143 as the extreme length allowable without extra strengthening, whereas her length was actually 300 feet or 25 times her depth. There is, we believe no instance of a similar vessel having ever made an Atlantic voyage in the fall of the year

We think that as the vessel was made there ought to have been added for the voyage out two deck ties in the form of ?I? girders - that is, a plate on edge, with a pair of angle iron tops and bottom, extending from poop to forecastle, of uniform section, for 150ft of length amidships, and tapering off towards each end. These should have been of considerable depth and section, and as they would have been built on the top of the iron deck only for the voyage, they could have been easily removed when houses were to be added. The effect of these deck girders would have been to prevent the vessel from breaking in two for some time - say until the tide had fallen and left the ends almost unsupported. We think it proper to state that the material and the workmanship of the hull of the ?CHUSAN? are both first class. In our opinion the vessel was wrecked because she was unmanageable in a severe gale, she was unmanageable because she had no efficient keel, and because of the great surface she exposed to a beam wind when on the rock. She broke up because she was deficient in deck-tie strength.

W.H. Turner,
Principal Shipwright Surveyor to
the Board of Trade

W McFarlane Gray
Chief Examiner
Engineers Marine Department,
Board of Trade

Signed with reference to my examination as a witness, W.H. Turner
J. McFarlane Gray

Ardrossan, Nov 9 1874

Scribe Tango