The Sun.
London, England, 1859-11-25 00:00:00

WRECK OF TAIL BOY AL CHARTER.

LIVERPOOL, THURSDAY.
Since our parcel was despatched last night (Wed-
nesday), Mr. Patterson, who was then under exa-
mination, continued +.o describe the manner in which
the Royal Charter was constructed. He said the
whole of the fastenings were made of the best iron,
and when the Messrs. Gibbs and Co. put the vessel
into his charge they gave orders to spare no ex-
pense • and, in Order that the Work might be done
well, higher wages were paid to the men than had
ever been known before: He had inspected her in
the graving-dock ' after every voyage except the..
_last, and never saw a loose rivet.
In answer to Mr. Aspinall,
Mr. Patterson said he believed the Royal Charter
was as strong a ship as had ever been built up to
the date of her construction.
Capt. Harris said she would not have come up to
Lloyd's present regulations.
Mr. Pattcr3on E4iid those regulutions -over° not in
force when she was built, but, except for her fas-
tenings being somewhat light, she would nearly
have come up to them.
Mr. Mansfield remarked that if the ship had been
stronger, she would, of course, have been heavier,
and then would probably not have existed longer
on the rocks:

Mr. Patterson—No. •
Capt. Harris said if she had been built like our
floating batteries, with 44 inch plates, her very
weight would have broken her on the rocks.
The inquiry was resumed to-day at the usual time
(one o'clock).
Mr. Patterson was recalled—The ,Royal Charier
could have been classed A 1 at Lloyd's in 1855, had
the owners so pleased, under the rules then exist-
ing. My foreman is a competent judge of both the
iron and workmanship. We looked to the iron and
rivetting particularly. When I took to the ship the
whole of the angle iron, the lower pipe, and the
beam iron were on the premises. Some portion of it
was unfit for the purpose. The angle and beam iron
would not stand the bend required. The diameter of
the keel rivets was 11 inch ; the plating was 1 inch.
I consider that rivets of that diameter were suffi-
ciently large for a vessel of that size. There were
a sufficient number of beams, and they were strong
enough. I .only use boiler plates for sheathing
ships, and am not aware that any other sorts of
iron are used for that purpose.
By Mr. Aspinall—That used on the Royal Char-
ter consisted of boiler plates. The engines of the
Royal Charter were supplied by Messrs. Penn, of
Greenock, at the rate of .£55 lOs per horse-power,
which is a high price.
James Berry, foreman to Mr. Patterson, said the
iron used in the bulk-heads was five-eighths thick.
He agreed with Mr. Patterson as to the rest of his
evidencel .f Superintended the building :of the
Royal Charter under Mr. Patterson. The witness
continued—When I joined her at Sandscroft, she
was in frame. The greatest possible pains were
taken to see that she was a strong ship. There were
three foremen engaged, and it was impossible for
anything to escape notice. I never heard any one
object to her in . any way as regards strength and
quality. The rivets in the keel were either Iti inch
or lfr inch in diameter, but I cannot be sure which.
The rivets in-the bottom were 1 inch. Round the
poop and forecastle they were 1- inch, the plates be-
ing lighter. There were stringers in the wings,
and diagonal plates, 6 inches wide by 1 inch,. in
the upper deck. The upper deck was lighter. A
stringer runs round the ship between the spar deck
and the main deck. Various qualities of iron are used
in the construction of ships, and the prices vary ac-
cordingly. The iron used in the Royal Charter stood
its weight well. Flaws were sometimes found in the
iron, and it was rejected. The quantity so rejected
was not more than the usual proportion. All the
materials used in the building of this ship were
similar to those generally used in the building of
iron ships at that time. I inspected the work of
the Great Britain. I was also employed to super-
intend the repairs of the Royal Charter, after she
grounded at Flint. She was brought to a graving
dock at Liverpool, when it was found that from 33
to 35 of her -floor angle irons were, broken, and that
her main keel was also bent two inches and a quar-
ter in a distance of 12 feet, in the midship part.
The midship kelson was broken. The garboard
streak was bent, and several plates were bent, but
not broken ' • they were taken out and reset. I don't
think we had any of the side plates out, as they
were not injured. The bilge kelsons, one on each.
side, were put in after the accident. She was ori-
ginally built with three kelsons only. About four

or five stanchions -in the midship part of the ship
were bent. Some of the rivets were started, but
only where there was great pressure, and When
wrenched by the strain on her. Neither the maid-
heads or the counter sunkheiids came off. - A great
many of the rivets were loosened, but they were all
replaced. Everythin7, was made good, and addi-
tional strength given to her. Stronger plates were
intro:meed into the main kuh,on at the sides and
top for the space of about 40 feet. In my opinion
she was properly and ellectually repaired, and in a
workmanlike manner. I saw her when she put
to Plymouth in 1855, on her first voyage. I
stmerintended repairs oa that occasion. There was
noLlait;g the matter with her hull, bat she leaked in
She was not put into graving
titers were sent on }Kell-di and her wa-

her Water Wa3'S
dock. Carle

terv;'ai•s WCI.O re2:l-dlketi. Soule extra fastenings
were also put in, and she wa3 lightened of übout

- - - .
300 tons of stone ballast.

Capt. Harris said, some stress had been laid
upon tfic., fact of this putting back, but it was clear to
his mind that she must have been made seaworthy,

or she could not have got the certificate of the

Board of Trade.

Mr. Patterson was of opinion that the vessel was
originally built with five kelstons, thoughhe agreed

with the hst witness that two were added after
the lannehing to-make her stronger.
Mr. O'Dowd said the Surveyor of the Board of
Trade found five kelsons when he examined her in
1857. -

Mr. Aspinall produced the original specification,
which provided for five kelsons—one main, and two
sister kelsons on each side.

The witness stated, in reply to Capt. Harris, that
he was certain two nelsons were added when she
was repaired the first time at Liverpool. He had
not seen any further repairs besides those he had
mentioned.

John Vernon (of the firm of Vernon and Son,
iron ship builders, Liverpool), said, after the vessel
had performed her first voyage he was requested to
suggest the best form of stringer to strengthen her
fore and aft. She was then lying in dock at Liver-
pool, in 1856, and a stringer was introduced be-
tween the lower and upper deck, covering all the
available space between those decks, leaving only
sufficient room to pass the rivets through. He never
saw so strong a stringer up to that time. No expense
was spared by Messrs. Gibbs, Bright, and Co. We
also introduced some breasthooks in the fore foot
of the ship, giving her additional strength at that
part. Floors were fixed to each frame as they
mounted upwards like a row of steps. If the old
iron had been defective the heads of the rivets would
have gene off, but nothing of the kind took place,
and my impression is that the iron was of good
quality.
By Mr. Mansfield—l did not originally suggest
a stringer, but I suggested this stringer when it
was decided to put one in.

By Captain Ilarris—The upper works required
strengthening. Capt. Martin showed me through
the ship, and requested me to examine her. It was
considered that, in consequence of her great length,
she required additional strength in her upper
works. There appeared to be some weakness, but
he did not think it was occasioned by the weight of
her masts and rigging. Ile understood this was to
meet anything that might happen to her, rather
than to remedy what had actually occurred. This
great stringer was much larger than Lloyd's rules
direct.

. By Mr. Mansfield—lle considered that the Royal
Charter was a very strong ship.. Of course, improve-
ments had been made since she was built, but at
that time a stronger ship could not be constructed.
Lloyds' rules were not always to be followed. By
those rules a short ship would be constructed of the
same strength as a long one, whereas it is well
known that greater strength is required in propor-
tion to the length. He would throw the strength
into the main body of the ship, and make her
lighter at the ends. In Oct., 1837, the fluke of the
anchor went through her bow, making a hole 'two
feet square. Both the plate and the angle iron had
been subjected.to great twisting in consequence of
the collision, and. he had then an- opportunity of
seeing that the materials ware of good quality. He
put in new plates and angle iron. Saw her on the
stocks when she was half-Way launched at Sands-
croft ; he went over her, and she appeared to be in
very good order then.
By Mr. Aspinall—Several large screw steamers
adopted similar stringers to the one I suggested for
the Royal Charter, but I have not seen any S 9
strong as the one used
_in that vessel. Having
had many opportunities of judging of the Royal
Charter, I should say she was a ship of very
great strength, but
.liable to straining, because of
her great length and fine ends. With the stringer
in I considered her to be a very strong ship.
By Mr. O'llowdLloyds' have issued fresh rules
this year which supersede those of 1837. I think
they arc still capable of very great improvement.
I would build ships stronger at midships, and
lighter at the ends.
[The evidence was still proceeding when our re-
port closed.]

MR. STOCQUELER AND THE LATE
• SALE OF -11? MY COMMISSIONS.

At the Maidstone Insolvent Court on Wednes-
day, before Mr. Espinasse, judge, Joachim Hay-
ward Stocqueler, " author, teacher, and lecturer,"
whose case stood adjourned from the last. Court, was
supported by Mr. Dowse, barrister, and opposed by
two of the creditors, Messrs. Eicke, sen. and jun., the
former opposing in person. The grounds of opposition
were the obtaining money under false pretences,
concealment of property, and vexatious defence.
The insolvent had petitioned this Court in 1851,
and in October, 1858, he had obtained a sequestra-
tion in, the Sheriff's Court at Peebles, Scotland,
about £20,000 of his then liabilities remaining still
unpaid. His present schedule showed debts to the
amount of £2,644 2s. 7d.; credits, nil.
At the previous Court the insolvent was exami-
ned with reference to a carriage he had had built
at a cost of £145, and which he had given to a Mrs.
'Witson, with whom be had been living at Norwood,
and who was known as " Mrs. Stocqucicr," the in-
- ovca.ixif6. having left him some 8. or 9
years since, and gone to Australia. He was also
questioned with respect to his transactions :with a
Mr. and, Mrs. Delahaye, who had discounted bills
for him to the amount of about £1,500, and to the
f6rmer of whom he was introduced while he (Dela-
haye) was in the Queen's Prison.
Previous to the adjourned examination being pro-
ceeded with, Mr. Eicke, sen., stated that Mr, Camp-
bell
(the manager of the Great Eastern- Company,
and who had lived in the same house as the insol-
vent at Norwood), had been subpoenaed to attend,
on his (Mr. Eicke's) application, but being anxious
not to interfere with the discharge of that gentle-
man's duties as the manager of a great national un-
dertaking, he had since had an interview with him,
and Mr. Campbell had satisfactorily explained to
him his connection with the insolvent.
His Honour—l cannot help saying, from the
statement of the insolvent, he appeared to keep a
very questionable establishment.
The insolvent was then examined at great length
by Mr. Eicke. He stated that his intention to leave
the house in which Mr. Campbell resided at Nor-
wood was known a long time before he did leave.
He would swear that Mr. Campbell did not order
him out of the house ; but it was on a suggestion of
Mr. Campbell that he left--in consequence of a
question arising with respect to a bill.
Mr. Dowse here objected that as there was no
money now owing on any bill which had Mr. Camp-
bell's name upon iteand with which the insolvent
had been connected, Mr. Eicke's questions were
irrelevant, Mr. Campbell not being an opposing
party.

The examination, however, was proceeded with.
His Honour remarked that enough transpired on
the former occasion to satisfy any person who heard
it that there had been a forgery of Mr. Campbell's
name.

Examinatimf continued—Mr. Campbell told him
that a bill had been presented, bearing his (Mr.
Campbell's) acceptance, but which was not in his
handwriting; that it had been taken notice of at
the bankers, and, as perhaps, proceedings might be
taken upon it, he (the insolvent) had better not
remain. This was Mr. Wilkinson's bill. He had
since met Mr. Campbell; on his return from the
contested election at Weymouth, and who then
shook hands with him. He had accompanied Mr.
Campbell to Weymouth at the former election, and
had introduced him there, but had received no re-
muneration for it. When he left Norwood Mr.
Campbell purchasei about 100 volumes of books of
him. He first went to the Bridge-house Hotel and
afterwards to his aunt's, a Miss Hayward, of Ken-
sington. Mrs. Wilson remained in the .house at
Norwood nntill the beginning of August, he having
left in J fly. There was no other lady in the honk,
but one or trro other gentlemen. Ile had known
Mr. Campbell intimately for the last 22 years, and
remembered him when 17 years of age as a clerk to
the Adjutant-General in Calcutta. He wculd swear
he never got any money from Mr. Campbell for his
sers ices at Weymouth, with the exleption of his
expenses. There we're a great many guests in the
house at Norwcod.

Mr. Eicke—Wore some of those guests freemen
from Weymouth? ►(. laugh.)
His Honour—Don't let us get into a question of
" treating."
Examination continued—Mrs. Wilson was living
at No, 1, Oxford-ferraco, London; befoi-e they • re-
moved to Norwood. Insolvent was in the habit
of going there occasionally, and—paid the rent of
the house on a lease for fou' years, but re-
sided with his aunt. He had known Mrs.

3on eight or ten year', and had lived with
her during that time. She had no property
when he first I);icarne connected with her. The

accepted by his aunt. He had unpaid acceptances
of Miss Hayward out at that time to the amount of
£2,000 and owed her altogether nearly £B,OOO.
She was about 80 years of age, and there was a
judgment then against her for £2OO or £3OO. Mrs.
'Wilson held a promissory note for the £lOO pay-
able on demand. He owed no money in Scotland,
but being in the north be was induced by a friend
to go further to seek relief from his liabilities. The
never
gave had cost him about £OO. lie
gave a bill purporting to be the acceptance of Mr.
Campbell to the firm of Armstrong and Co. for
them to fill up.
A letter was here put in by Mr. Eickc, which in-
solvent admitted was in his handwriting, and dated
from the United &nice Gazette office, January 1,
1859. This letter, it was elicited, was addressed to
Mr. Eieke, sen., and ran thus :
" I have received a letter from Ca stain Mortimer, who
tells me I have been exerting myself for Henry because he
holds a document over my head to coerce me to an
act of justice. I will put an end to this. Not another
shilling will I spend until the document is restored to me or
destroyed in my presence. :nig course I am resolved on and
no earthly power will change me. Therefore, if you meet
me on Monday, at 12 o'clock, at the Bridge-house, Hotel,
we can continue our operations on a basis clue to my own
feelings, to common justice, and to good policy."
Mr. Eickc—To what document does that letter
refer ? Does it not refer to an acceptance of Mr.
Campbell for £l5O, which you took to Armstrong
and Co., and got them to put their name to, so as
to get it discounted at their bankers, and you re-
ceived the money for it ?
Insolvent—l do not know what document that
was.

His Honour—But you must know. Was it a do-
cument purporting to be an acceptance of Mr.
Campbell.?
Insolvent—l fancy so from what Mr. Eicke now
says. recollect having received a letter from Cap-
tain Mortimer with regard to that, but I could
hardly believe it, as Henry Eicke had sworn to me
that that document had been destroyed long before.
His Honour—Has any money been raised on this
acceptance?
Insolvent—l had a sort of running account with
Armstrong and Co.
Mr. Eicke—But we want to know whether you
got any money from them on this particular ac-
ceptance ?
• Insolvent—lt is very difficult for me to answer
that question,, because I never endorsed it, nor
drew it. I gave it to Henry Eicke, and he ad-
vanced me some money.
Mr. Eicke—Then, he did advance you money
on it ?