BOARD OF TRADE INQUIRY 03 JAN 1906  - COLLISION BETWEEN THE HULL TRAWLER EUCLID H370 AND EAGLE H454

 

"EAGLE" (S.S.) AND "EUCLID" (S.S.).

The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.

IN the matter of a formal investigation held at the Town Hall, Hull, on the 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st days of December, 1906, and the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd days of January, 1907, before J. G. HAY HALKETT, Esquire, assisted by Captain ALEXANDER WOOD, Commander B. DU S. ANSTIS, R.N.R., and Mr. T. R. CALLARD, into the circumstances attending the collision between the steamship "EUCLID" and the steamship "EAGLE," on the 16th of November, 1906, and the subsequent abandonment of the latter.

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 cause of the casualty and the consequent serious damage to the "Eagle" was the failure of the skipper of the "Euclid" to keep out of the way of the "Eagle." The "Eagle" was not prematurely abandoned. The Court finds the skipper of the "Euclid," Mr. Horace Harvey, alone in default, and suspends his certificate as skipper, No. 2596, for three months from the date hereof.

Dated this 3rd day of January, 1907.

J. G. HAY HALKETT,

Judge.

We concur in the above Report.

Â

A. WOOD,

Â

B. DU S. ANSTIS,

Assessors.

Â

T. R. CALLARD,

Annex to the Report.

This inquiry was held at the Town Hall, Hull, on the above mentioned days, when Mr. H. Saxelbye represented the Board of Trade, and Mr. E. A. Laverack appeared for Mr. Horace Harvey, the skipper of the "Euclid." Mr. George Adams, the skipper of the "Eagle," who was also a party to the inquiry, appeared in person, but was not represented professionally. Upon the application of Dr. T. C. Jackson, the owners and underwriters (The Humber Steam Trawlers' Mutual Insurance and Protecting Company, Limited), for both of whom he appeared, were made parties to the inquiry.

The "Euclid," official number 106,767, is a steam trawler, built of steel at Govan in 1897 by Messrs. Mackie & Thomson, and her respective dimensions are:—Length 104.2 ft.; breadth 21 ft.; depth in hold 10.74 ft.; gross tonnage 165.13 tons and registered tonnage 57 5 tons. She was fitted by Messrs. Muir & Houston, Limited, of Glasgow, with triple expansion direct-acting engines, of 45 h.p. nominal, the diameter of the cylinders being 11, 17, and 28 ins. respectively, and the length of stroke 20 ins. Her speed is given in the register as 10 knots. She is owned by the Great Northern Steamship Fishing Company, Limited, of Hull, Mr. William Richard Nowell being her registered manager. She had one boat, of the usual size and description carried by vessels of her class, and she was supplied with four lifebuoys and one lifebelt for each member of the crew.

The "Euclid" left Hall at 4 a.m. on the 15th of October last, bound for the Great Northern fishing fleet, which was lying about 220 miles E. by N. 1/2 N. of Spurn, under the command of Mr. Horace Harvey, who held a certificate of competency as skipper, No. 2596, and dated 1st of December, 1890, with a crew of nine hands all told. The "Euclid" joined the fleet in due course, and fished with it until the morning of the 16th of November. At about 7 a.m. of that day the trawl was hove up and the vessel proceeded in the direction of the carrier. At this time a moderate northerly breeze was blowing, with a moderate swell from the same direction. The weather was clear. As the "Euclid" came down wind with her engines going dead slow, the carrier was lying with her port side to windward. There were many steam trawlers in her immediate vicinity, and three of these were approaching her port quarter in line ahead, with the object of boarding. These were, in the order of their nearness to the carrier, the "Ebor," "Elbe," and "Eagle." The "Ebor" was, according to the skipper of the "Euclid," one length from the carrier's port quarter, heading towards her; the "Elbe," one length behind the "Ebor's" port quarter, heading in the same direction as the "Ebor," and the "Eagle" was two lengths from the "Elbe," and heading for the "Elbe's" starboard quarter. The "Euclid" was then, according to her skipper, heading for halfway between the "Elbe" and the "Eagle," distant two lengths from the "Elbe" and three lengths from the "Eagle," which was about four points on her starboard bow. At this moment the progress of the line of vessels was being interrupted by the "Ribble" passing from leeward of the carrier under her stern immediately ahead of the "Ebor." This manœuvre on her part brought her into collision, or nearly so, with the "Ebor," and necessitated that vessel, and those behind her, going astern.

The "Eagle," official number 110,712, is a steam trawler built of steel at Govan in 1899 by Messrs. Mackie & Thomson, and her respective dimensions are:—Length 104 ft., breadth 21 ft., depth in hold 10.75 ft., gross tonnage 168.16 tons, and registered tonnage 54.04 tons. She was fitted by Messrs. Muir & Houston, Limited, of Glasgow, with triple expansion direct-acting engines of 40 h.p. nominal, the diameter of the cylinders being 10, 16 1/2, and 28 ins. respectively, and the length of stroke 20 ins. Her speed is given in the register as 9.5 knots. She is owned by the Great Northern Steamship Fishing Company, Limited, of Hull, Mr. William Richard Nowell being her registered manager. She had one boat of the usual size and description carried by vessels of her class. She was supplied with four lifebuoys and one lifebelt for each member of the crew. She was fitted with the following pumps:—In the engine room there was a bilge injection pump with a 3 3/4-in. bore, also a bilge pump from the main engines of 2 1/2-in. bore, and a duplex-acting donkey pump of the same bore. The chief engineer stated that he could only use one of these pumps at the same time. The vessel was also supplied with three hand pumps, one of which was in the fore peak, one in the main hold, and one in the engine room. She was fitted with a watertight collision bulkhead about 4 1/2 ft. abaft the stem and with another watertight bulkhead 25 ft. further aft, viz, between the storeroom and the hold, which was supported by a fore-and-aft bulkhead running amidships along the hold. The vessel had two ballast tanks forward under the storeroom and before the after of the two above-mentioned bulkheads. Before them was the fresh-water tank which was under the forecastle. These ballast tanks had a combined capacity of 25 tons—the fore one being the smaller of the two. There was also a ballast tank aft under the cabin floor, but of very small capacity.

The "Eagle" left Hull about 9 a.m. on the 23rd of October last, bound also for the Great Northern fishing fleet in the North Sea, under the command of Mr. George Adams, who holds a certificate of competency as skipper No. 5478 and dated 7th June, 1899, with a crew of nine hands all told. She joined the fleet in due course and fished with it until the morning of the 16th November. She then approached the proximity of the carrier, and when about a mile distant put her engines, which had previously been going at slow, at dead slow.

When the "Eagle" came to within about five lengths of the carrier, which was almost ahead and heading in the same direction as herself, the skipper stated that he had several vessels between him and the carrier's port quarter, also similarly heading, and that then the "Elbe," which was immediately ahead of him, gave three blasts with her whistle—indicating that she was going astern. Whereupon the skipper of the "Eagle" stopped his engines. Immediately after he had stopped his engines he noticed the "Euclid" about two ships' lengths from him and three points on his port bow coming with the wind aft at right angles to his course. Under these circumstances the skipper of the "Eagle," seeing the "Euclid" so close as to render it impossible to avoid a collision without taking some steps himself, at once put his engines half speed, and then full speed, astern giving at the same time three blasts with his whistle. He stated that he did not hear the "Euclid," give three blasts until she was within 20 ft. of him, nor did he notice any diminution in her speed up to the moment when, with her stem, she struck the port bow of the "Eagle" in the way of the collision bulkhead. According to the skipper of the "Euclid" his intention at the time when he first sighted the "Eagle" three lengths away and four points on his starboard bow, was to come round in the wake of the "Elbe" in order to approach the weather quarter of the carrier. It was at this moment that he noticed the "Ebor" and "Elbe" coming astern. Whereupon, instead of altering the course of his vessel, he stopped her, blew three blasts and put the engines slow astern. According to his story, he was at that time two and a half to three lengths from the "Eagle." He states that he then saw the "Eagle" still slowly coming ahead, upon which he again sounded three blasts and rung the engines full speed astern. The second hand of the "Eagle" agreed with his skipper that three blasts were only sounded once on board the "Euclid" and then only just before the moment of striking. However, whatever steps the skipper of the "Euclid" did take they were adopted too late, as she came on at considerable speed and struck the "Eagle" with great force. So heavy was the blow that all the seven plates including the one on the garboard strake on her port bow were damaged, the butt ends started and the rivets driven out, the collision bulkhead was broken, the chain in the chain locker was struck with such force as to bulge out the opposite side of the vessel, and indeed had the chain not been in the way the "Euclid" would probably have cut the "Eagle " right through. Witnesses from the "Eagle" stated that they were carried off their feet by the force of the impact.

Three principal witnesses spoke to the position of the vessels when the "Eagle" was about five or six lengths from the cutter, and illustrated their evidence by placing models from which diagrams were drawn. These were:—the two skippers in question and the skipper of the "Elbe." These were not agreed as to the direction of the wind, the exact headings of the carrier, and the other vessels, but the discrepancies between them were not substantial. They were practically of the same mind as to the salient facts—that the "Ebor," "Elbe," and "Eagle" were more or less in line making for the carrier's weather quarter, that the "Euclid" coming down wind had the "Eagle" on her own starboard side and broke into the line of vessels by colliding with her.

Just before the casualty those on board the "Eagle" were in the act of launching their boat to board the carrier with their fish, and the boat was on the vessel's rail when the collision took place. In both vessels the skippers were on the bridge alone, steering their vessels and keeping a look-out, which is apparently the usual practice under the then conditions. After the blow the "Euclid" appears to have gone astern and to have proceeded to the lee side of the carrier. During the time which elapsed before the "Eagle" was able to make her way to the carrier's port quarter and board her fish, the skipper was occupied in examining the damage which his vessel had sustained. He ascertained that the fore peak was fast filling with water and that it was rapidly coming into the chain locker to which, on account of the chain, he could not find ready access. He then ordered the chief engineer to pump out the fore ballast tank and to remove the manhole door so that the leakage could find its way to the steam pump. He sent a message to the skipper of the "Euclid" by his boat to the carrier that his vessel was severely damaged and that he would be required to stand by him. After the boat had left, the skipper of the trawler "Ermine" came on board and assisted the skipper of the "Eagle" to put a sail over the bow to stop the leakage. It was soon found that the water from the leak was gaining on the pumps, and the skipper realized that he had made a mistake in taking off the fore tank lid instead of employing the tank to increase the vessel's buoyancy, but it was too late to rectify this.

Soon after the skipper of the "Euclid" received the message from the "Eagle," and about an hour after the casualty, he came on board that vessel and a conversation took place between them, from which it appears that the skipper of the "Euclid" blamed the skipper of the "Eagle" for not going astern. An arrangement was then made that the skipper of the "Euclid" should, after boarding his fish. see the "Eagle" home. Whereupon the "Eagle" proceeded under her own steam for four or five miles, during which time the sail over the bow was washed away and was replaced by another which had a similar fate. She continued to make water in the fore part which brought her down by the head and caused her propeller to race. Under these circumstances she hoisted distress signals and the "Euclid" rejoined her. The skipper of the "Eagle" then informed the skipper of the "Euclid" that it was impossible for him to keep his vessel any longer under her own steam and asked the skipper of the "Euclid" to take him in tow to which the latter agreed. Accordingly the "Eagle" was taken in tow by the "Euclid's" own wire hawsers. It was arranged that the skipper and two of the crew of the "Eagle" should remain on board to steer her, but the skipper instead lashed the helm amidships and brought all hands back with him to the "Euclid" as he thought that, owing to the threatening condition of the weather, it was not safe for anyone to remain on the "Eagle" in her then condition. When the skipper left the "Eagle" the water in the fore part of her was up to within 2 ft. of the deck, but at this time there was no water in the vessel abaft the second bulkhead.

It was about 12.30 p.m. of the 16th November last when the "Eagle" was taken in tow. During the whole or part of the following night she was towed without any lights being exhibited on her as her own had been broken in the forehold among the water. According to the skipper of the "Eagle," she was very difficult to tow. During that night the weather became worse, the wind rising to a strong breeze with heavy sea and rain. At 7.30 a.m. of the 17th the "Euclid" was stopped and the skipper of the "Eagle" went on board her to put up lights which he took from the "Euclid." At this time no change was found in the condition of the vessel. Towing was resumed at about 10.30 a.m. of the 17th until about 7.30 p.m. of the same day, when the wind having backed to the westward and become much stronger, the vessels were hove to for the night. At about this time, according to both skippers, the chief engineer of the "Euclid" (who was not called as a witness) reported that he was short of coals, and the skipper of the "Eagle" suggested that coals might be obtained from his vessel. Accordingly at daylight on the morning of the 18th, the weather having moderated meantime, the wind still continuing from the westward, both boats were put out and about nine tons of coal taken on board the "Euclid." This operation delayed the vessels in comparatively fine weather until about 2.30 p.m., and it is difficult for the Court to understand the necessity for it or to believe in the accuracy of the chief engineer's report, for at midnight on the 21st when the "Euclid" returned to Hull she had 14 tons of coal in her bunkers.

Towing continued, with various short stoppages, until and during the 19th. On this day the skipper of the "Eagle" when visiting his vessel found that there were 4 ft. of water in the main hold. About midnight of the same day she hove to until the morning, on account of the weather, which since the previous day had become so stormy as to make it unwise to proceed. At this time the vessels seem to have been within the range of Spurn light. The skipper of the "Eagle" came into the cabin and reported to the skipper of the "Euclid" that it looked very light in the westward, and the latter observed that there was a lot of traffic about. At about 9 a.m. of the 20th towing re-commenced and was continued until about midday, when the towlines parted. Some corroboration of the supposition that the light seen at midnight of the night before was Spurn, was now afforded by a Grimsby trawler, who was understood to say that they were then 20 to 30 miles out—for when lying-to the vessels had been driving to the eastward all the time. During the passage from the fleet the relations between the two skippers under the then somewhat trying circumstances had not been of the most pleasant character. Apparently the skipper of the "Eagle" had complained of the stoppages that had been made, and that the "Euclid" had not towed the "Eagle" as fast as she should. On the morning in question the skipper of the "Euclid" had put his vessel at full speed ahead for the first time since the towage commenced, and he stated that he did so because of the complaints of the skipper of the "Eagle," and he consequently blamed the latter for the towlines parting. About this time the skipper of the "Euclid" asked a Grimsby trawler, which was then in the vicinity, to report him as lying with the "Eagle" waterlogged. The weather during this day was too bad to permit of a boat being launched, and as attempts to pick up the hawser by sweeping having failed, the "Euclid" lay by the "Eagle" until the following morning when, the wind having changed to S.W. to W.S.W. and somewhat moderated, efforts to re-establish a connection were resumed.

During the early morning of the 21st of November, two attempts were made by two boats' crews from the "Euclid" (in the first of which was the skipper of the "Euclid" and in the second of which was the second hand of the "Euclid") to get a line on board the "Eagle," but both proved unsuccessful. Complaint was made by the skipper of the "Eagle" that the boats were nearly swamped by the "Euclid" towing them at too high a rate of speed, and the skipper of the "Euclid" stated that his vessel was not going slow enough when he was in the boat. But no casualty took place, and consequently nothing turns upon these allegations. Before the third and last attempt was made that morning to establish a connection between the two vessels, a conversation took place between the skippers. The skipper of the "Euclid" stated that the skipper of the "Eagle" said that if the next attempt did not succeed he would "chuck the job up." This the latter denied. He, however, said that he did suggest to the skipper of the "Euclid" that the latter should go in the boat and that he should manœuvre his ship. Anyhow a third attempt was made and failed owing to the connecting line breaking after it had been successfully got from the "Eagle" on board the "Euclid." After this happened, whoever originally suggested abandonment, there can be no doubt that both skippers were absolutely agreed that it was impossible to do more to save the "Eagle." As far as the skipper of the "Euclid" was concerned he had a much more potent reason than the alleged scarcity of coal for making for the Humber. There were 18 hands on board and only 14 or 15 gallons of fresh water in the tanks. He had tried to, and no doubt hoped to be able to, tow the "Eagle" into port, but in the then state of the weather this seemed an impossibility with so slender a supply of water. The skipper of the "Eagle" thereupon went on board his vessel and hoisted signals of distress. About this time the "Northumbria," a Grimsby steam trawler, passed close by the "Eagle" and turned with her trawl down to speak to the "Euclid," an operation which took about 20 minutes, but before she could get round the "Euclid" had disappeared, having abandoned the "Eagle." it might perhaps have been better if the "Euclid" had spoken the "Northumbria," when a supply of water might have enabled her to stand by the "Eagle" for longer, and possibly to have got her home. Or the "Euclid" and the "Northumbria" might have co-operated in plans for salving the "Eagle." The skipper of the "Eagle" might, on the other hand, have asked the skipper of the "Euclid" to put him and his crew on board the "Northumbria." However, this latter course would probably not have largely reduced the salvage award' which the "Northumbria" ultimately obtained, and as she, being a single boating trawler, was a much more powerful vessel than the "Euclid" and better fitted with appliances, it is more than doubtful if the latter, even if she had obtained water, could ever have got the "Eagle" into port. But the skipper of the "Eagle," who alone was responsible for his vessel, evidently did not think of any other plan as he made no suggestion. He acquiesced fully in the decision of the skipper of the "Euclid" that nothing more could be done, and having put up the distress signals he left his vessel to whoever could successfully salve her.

The "Eagle" was abandoned by the "Euclid" between 10 and 11 a.m. of the 21st November last, and the latter vessel reached Hull about midnight of the same day. When the "Northumbria" approached the "Eagle" the sea was so high that oil had to be thrown on it before his boat could be safely launched. A connection was established about 12.30 p.m., but the "Eagle" broke adrift almost immediately afterwards. Again the same efforts were, after great difficulties, successfully made and the vessel was taken into tow until 7 p.m., when she broke away a second time. At 8.30 p.m. they got hold again—the weather having moderated—and they towed her until next morning. At 11 a.m. of the 22nd, the warps broke but she was got in tow again. When inside Spurn Point the skipper persuaded three men to volunteer to go on board the "Eagle" to steer her. After 20 minutes the skipper thought she was sinking and took them on board his vessel again. This incident happening in the Humber, and to a salvor whose interest was so great to get her safely up the river, is strong evidence of the dangerous state of the vessel. Between Spurn and the Bull light-vessel, however, men were put on board her again, and she was got to Grimsby at 8 p.m. of the 22nd November, going very slow and steering very heavily. It is problematical whether a low-powered vessel like the "Euclid" could have accomplished services such as these.

It is sometimes the duty of this Court to point out the dangers that arise through the congestion of fishing vessels in the immediate vicinity of the carrier. A large number of craft are herded together—each skipper being anxious to be at the carrier before the other—and one of the witnesses admitted that collisions are very frequent among them. They have the strongest motives for wishing to board their fish as quickly as possible, not only to make certain of catching the carrier before she departs, but to board her early enough to be sure of a supply of empty boxes which sometimes become s??arce. And in their eagerness they disregard not only the Boarding Regulations of the Board of Trade, but also the regulations for preventing collisions at sea. In this case the skipper of the "Euclid" apparently knew that a vessel to windward has a worse chance of getting close to the carrier than those who are in line for her port quarter, and he endeavoured, regardless of consequences, to cut into that ??ne. His action in doing so was quite inexcusable. He appeared to disregard the regulations for preventing collisions altogether an?? indeed—when he upbraided the skipper of the "Eagle" for not going astern—not to realize their existence. This remark of his also shews clearly that he intended to push himself in front of her rather than, as he said, to follow in the wake of the "Elbe."

There is one other matter which the Court feels bound to mention. The dislocation of the progress of the line of vessels proceeding to the port side of the cutter was occasioned by the "Ribble" coming in from the leeward side of the cutter under her stern, and thus causing the "Ebor," "Elbe," and "Eagle" to go astern. But for this manouvre on her part the collision, in all probability, would not have occurred. This move on the "Ribble's" part appears to he legalised by the Boarding Regulations, and the "Ribble" is not a party to this inquiry. But the Court is bound to say that in its opinion the latter part of Regulation No. 6 requires amendment. It is there provided that "should a trawler in the first instance be to leeward of the carrier, she shall pass astern of her and also of those vessels that are hove to and have already boarded, and along the weather side of the carrier as aforesaid." In the opinion of the Court, it is not sufficient to provide that trawlers under the circumstances "shall pass astern of those vessels which are hove-to and have already boarded. Trawlers should not be allowed to pass immediately under the stern of the carrier and interrupt the stream of vessels heading for her port quarter. They should be compelled to come in astern of such vessels, and, in the interest of safe navigation, this is as necessary as the existing provision that they must pass astern of vessels hove-to to leeward of the cutter.

At the conclusion of the evidence, Mr. Saxelbye, on behalf of the Board of Trade, submitted the following questions for the opinion of the Court:—

(1) At or about 7.45 a.m. of the 16th November last were the "Eagle" and the "Euclid" crossing ships within the meaning of Article 19 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea? If so, did the "Euclid" keep out of the way of the "Eagle" as required by the said Article, and did she avoid crossing ahead of her as required by Article 22, and on approaching her, if necessary, slacken her speed or stop or reverse her engines as required by Article 23 of the said Regulations? Did the "Eagle" keep her course and speed as required by Article 21?

(2) Were there any special circumstances requiring a departure from the above rules necessary or some special precaution to be taken by either one or both vessels? If so, did either one or both vessels comply with Articles 27 and 29 of the said Regulations?

(3) Was a good and proper look-out kept on board both ships?

(4) What was the cause of the collision and was the "Eagle" seriously damaged thereby?

(5) Were both vessels navigated with proper and seamanlike care?

(6) Was the "Eagle" prematurely abandoned?

(7) Was serious damage to and/or abandonment of the s.s. "Eagle" caused by the wrongful act or default of her skipper and the skipper of the "Euclid," or of either of them?

Dr. Jackson having addressed the Court on behalf of the owners and underwriters, the skipper of "Eagle" having said a few words, and Mr. Laverack having spoken for the skipper of the "Euclid," the Court gave judgment and returned the following answers to questions of the Board of Trade:”

(1) At or about 7.45 a.m. of the 16th November last the "Eagle" and the "Euclid" were crossing ships within the meaning of Article 19 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. The "Euclid" did not keep out of the way of the "Eagle" as required by the said Article, and she only avoided crossing ahead of her, as prohibited by Article 22, by coming into collision with her. On approaching the "Eagle" the "Euclid" did stop and reverse her engines, as required by Article 23 of the said Regulations, but not in time to avoid collision. The "Eagle" did keep her course and speed, as required by Article 21, until obliged to stop owing to the "Elbe," which was right ahead, coming astern.

(2) Special circumstances in the case of the "Eagle" did exist which necessitated a departure from the above rules. In relation to the "Euclid" the "Eagle" should have kept her course and speed, but she was not only obliged to stop, on hearing three blasts from the "Elbe,' but to reverse her engines when she found the "Euclid" so close to her that collision could not be avoided by the action of the "Euclid" alone. Nothing in Articles 27 or 29 can exonerate the "Euclid" for her action in coming into the line of vessels on her own starboard side. She ought to have kept a reasonable distance away, and her skipper might, had he observed the manœuvre of the "Ribble," have anticipated that the vessels astern of the carrier would be obliged to go astern to avoid the "Ribble." The partial noncompliance on the part of the "Eagle" with Article 21 is covered by the provisions of the note to Article 21 and Article 27.

(3) A good and proper look-out was not kept on board the "Euclid." A good and proper look-out was kept on board the "Eagle."

(4) The cause of the collision was the failure of the "Euclid" to keep out of-the way of the "Eagle." Serious damage to the "Eagle" was caused thereby.

(5) The "Euclid" was not navigated with proper and seamanlike care. The "Eagle" was navigated with proper and seamanlike care.

(6) Although the "Eagle" was subsequently brought into port by the s.s. "Northumbria," this was done under great difficulties, and the Court is not satisfied that she was prematurely abandoned by her skipper.

(7) Serious damage to the s.s. "Eagle" was caused by the wrongful act of the skipper of the "Euclid" alone. It is not proved that the skipper of the "Eagle" prematurely abandoned his vessel, and as he was agreed with the skipper of the "Euclid" that nothing more could be done to save her, no breach of Section 422 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, can be laid to the charge of the skipper of the "Euclid." The Court suspends the certificate, No. 2596, of the skipper of the "Euclid" for three months from the date hereof.

J. G. HAY HALKETT,

Judge.

We concur

Â

A. WOOD,

Â

Â

B. DU S. ANSTIS,

Assessors.

Â

T. R. CALLARD,

(Issued in London by the Board of Trade on the 25th day of January, 1907.)