Recent Losses of Iron Steamships - The Case of the " Constance " -  continued :

We are sorry we are unable to agree with the captain as to the cause of this casualty, and cannot but consider that the loss of this vessel was owing to the following circumstances:
1st. The evidence of the builders shows that when she got into salt water her freeboard would be 2 feet 1 inch, and as the depth of hold was 17 feet thus giving 14 inches per foot, which is in our opinion insufficient.
2nd. Her cargo was stowed in the fore and after holds. Un fortunately the evidence did not furnish the Court with the quantity each compartment contained, but it was stated that she would require to be very well stowed to contain 1,450 tons, and as she had 74 tons less than this quantity, we may presume there was this much space in the vessel, but where this space was situated we are unable to say; it is, however, beyond a doubt by the evidence that the side coal bunkers under the bridge, and which were 7 feet higher than the main-deck, were full, and contained 83 tons of engine coals, and so long as the vessel kept a fairly upright position there would be no immediate danger, but so soon as the pressure of wind or sea or both was brought to bear upon her she was thrown beyond a certain angle and the super incumbent weight necessarily carried her, owing to her peculiar construction, on to her beam ends and makes to all intents and purposes a wreck of her.
It is obvious that even if the engineer had succeeded in getting the engines into working order so as to go at full speed the position of the ship could not have been changed. In the opinion of the Court if vessels of this construction are to be used for mercantile purposes they ought not to carry cargo above the main-deck. In our opinion had the cargo been stowed as suggested the probabilities were in favour of her making her voyage. During the course of this inquiry very much has been said on behalf of the owners as to Lloyd's having approved of the construction of this vessel and classed her A 1.90. 'Lloyd's' thus referred to do not constitute the underwriting body at 'Lloyd's' but are called and known as 'Lloyd's Book Committee', a different body altogether, and they only certify that such a vessel as the Constance is fit to carry dry and perishable cargo to any part of the world, but do not give any opinion as to how much cargo should be carried or where or how stowed.
The Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court on the following questions :
1. What was the cause of the loss of the steamship Constance on the 9th February, 1880?
2. Whether, taking into consideration the season of year and the nature of the intended voyage, the said steamship was overloaded upon leaving Cardiff?
3. Whether the cargo was properly stowed; and
4. Whether, having regard to the construction of the said steamship, she had sufficient stability for the safe carriage of the cargo on board?
To which questions the Court replied as follows:
1. The cause of the loss of the steamship Constance on the 9th February, 1880, was the capsizing and foundering of the said vessel.
2. The said steamship was overladen when she left Cardiff.
3. The Court is unable to answer this question, as there is no satisfactory evidence before it as to the stowing of the cargo in the said steamship.
4. The Court is of opinion that the construction of the said steamship was such that she did not possess sufficient stability for the safe carriage of the cargo on board.