THE KNOWSLEY HALL.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2036, 2 September 1880, Page 3

THE KNOWSLEY HALL.

The Board of Trade iEquiry into the circumstances attending the loss of the Knowsley Hall has been brought to a conclusion. Mr Muir Mackenzie, -who appeared for the Board of Trade, regretted to state that, from the report of _ the captain of H.M.S. Comns, who had visited (the Crozet Islands, none of the shipwrecked crew had been found there. The Admiralty had also informed the Board of Trade that H.M.S. Raleigh, which went on a voyage to Amsterdam Island, had not met with any success in this respect. He had to submit for the opinion of the Court the following points :—l. Was the Knowsley Hall at the time she left London in good condition and well found ? 2. Was the cargo properly stowed, and as laden had the vessel sufficient stability ? 3. What, in the opinion of the Court: upon the evidence, was the cause of the vessel not being heard of since she left London on May 30th, 1879 ? —Mr Bucknill, on the part of the owner, regretted to state that his client, Mr Harron, had recently died. Mr Commissioner Eothery, in giving judgment, said that after the reports which had been referred to, it might fairly be assumed that the vessel had foundered. The circumstances of the case were as follows :—He was of opinion, from the evidence, that when the vessel left London she was in good conditio!, and well found, and was a good seaworthy ship. As to the question whether the cargo was properly stowed, ho thought it was ; but in regard to whether, as laden, she had sufficient stability, the evidence as to the amount of her freeboard

was not, perhaps, so satisfactory as it should be. One of the witnesses stated that he did not take notice where the load-lino was, and he (Mr Commissioner Bothery) could not but think it a most extraordinary thing that Lloyds', who were so very particular in requiring from owners a iull detail of every portion of the vessel, should not take the trouble to ascertain where the load-line was to be placed, as the stability or instability of a vessel depended upon the depth she was laden. Yet Lloyds' gave a first-class certificate to tho vessel without knowing from the owner where he proposed to put the loadline, and to what depth he intended to load. He thought it desirable that Lloyds' attention should be directed to the matter. In regard to the last question as to the cause of the loss of the vessel, in the opinion of the Court there was nothing to account for it. It would be useless for the Court to speculate whether she came into collision with icebergs by going too far couth, or whether she came into collision with any other vessel. There was nothing from the evidence to say but that she was in very good condition when she left London.