From the Rolls-Royce experimental archive: a quarter of a million communications from Rolls-Royce, 1906 to 1960's. Documents from the Sir Henry Royce Memorial Foundation (SHRMF).
Newspaper article detailing the inquest into the fatal accident of Sir Henry Segrave's 'Miss England' speedboat.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 174\5\ img075 | |
| Date | 12th July 1930 | |
| The Segrave Tragedy. How Sir Henry Met His Death. Experts at Inquest Explain How Disaster Happened. Floating Branch Struck at Great Speed. LAST SCENE ON MISS ENGLAND : SEGRAVE'S SIGNAL BEFORE DEATH. The reason for the disaster to Miss England II, which resulted in the death of Sir Henry Segrave and Mr. P. V.{VIENNA} C. Halliwell, his Rolls-Royce engineer, on Windermere was proved at the resumed inquest held on Saturday at Hawkshead by Mr. F.{Mr Friese} W. Poole, Coroner for North Lancashire. There was a jury of eight. Mr. F.{Mr Friese} Cooper, the designer of Miss England II, was represented by Mr. H.{Arthur M. Hanbury - Head Complaints} Handley (Messrs. Geo. Gatey and Son), and Mr. Allan V.{VIENNA} Nutt appeared for Rolls-Royce, Ltd., and the widow and relatives of Mr. Halliwell. Mr. J.{Mr Johnson W.M.} S. Chamberlain appeared on behalf of Lord Wakefield, and the builders of Miss England II, were represented by Mr. G.{Mr Griffiths - Chief Accountant / Mr Gnapp} N. Pattinson, Windermere. Mr. Poole said he thought it would expedite the case if he first called upon Mr. Handley. Mr. Handley said that he and Mr. Nutt had collected evidence to enable the jury to arrive at a conclusion with regard to the cause of the disaster which resulted in the lamented death of Sir Henry Segrave and Mr. P. V.{VIENNA} C. Halliwell. As a result of their investigations, they could say definitely as a matter of positive evidence that the disaster arose from one cause, and one cause only. They had eliminated all other causes. With the help of a wooden model Mr. Handley described the step of the boat. He said it had three skins of mahogany fastened to a frame, and was bolted to the under part of the boat at the bows in order to lift them out of the water when travelling at speed. What actually happened was that a portion of the port side of the step was ruptured, with the result that part of it gave way and fell down, forming a flap. This caused a much greater lifting power on that side and the boat overturned in the manner one would expect. From the condition which Mr. Cooper found they had been driven to the conclusion that the rupture was caused by a blow from some object floating in the water. Other evidence would be called, and he thought it might be desirable at that point to mention that Mr. Cooper had designed Miss England I and the only two speed boats capable of doing 80 m.p.h. that had been built in this country since 1921, and had been closely connected with those designed previously. It was difficult, of course, with so many experts to get independent evidence, but Lloyds, the underwriters, had instructed Mr. Thomas Little, naval architect and consulting engineer, Liverpool, to inspect the boat. The underwriters were, of course, particularly concerned to ascertain whether or not the accident was due to some lack of strength or to some fault in design or construction, and Mr. Little had directed his mind to that, but was forced to come to another conclusion. ENGINES IN PERFECT ORDER. Mr. Nutt said the engines supplied by Rolls-Royce were of the same type as that used in the... Mr. G.{Mr Griffiths - Chief Accountant / Mr Gnapp} N. Pattinson - As far as the hull of the boat was concerned you had every satisfaction?—Yes, I am confident it was not the fault of Miss England II in any shape or form. The whole boat as well as the hull were in perfect order. Mr. John G.{Mr Griffiths - Chief Accountant / Mr Gnapp} A.{Mr Adams} Kitchen, engineer, Brookfield, Windermere, said he was watching the trim of Miss England II, and took up a position at right angles to the course. He had been interested in the designing of steam and motor boats for 30 years, and he was making particular investigations from a technical point of view. He never saw a speed boat travel more perfectly. Describing the accident, he said that without apparently altering her course the boat appeared to slow down. She seemed to throw out water and then turned over at right angles to her course. He saw a man's legs appear on the water, then he saw two other figures. The second and third were picked up. Later he saw a practically submerged object lying between 200 and 300 yards astern of Miss England. He went up to this object, and found it was the water-logged branch (produced in court). He thought at first it was a portion of the step, but decided to keep it in any case. DRIFTWOOD AND SUCTION. In reply to the Coroner, he said that even if the course had been swept the suction might have drawn objects from the side of the lake when the boat was travelling at speed. Mr. Cooper Pattinson also gave a description of the disaster. He was not near enough, however, he said, to get a clear impression of the details. He wrote to the same, and for a period of time his motor launch was attached to Miss England II. Being interested in construction, he took particular notice of the step. He saw that the forward part of the step was broken on the port side. Mr. James Eller, an experimental engineer of Derby, employed by Rolls-Royce, Ltd., said that before the attempt on the record the engines were examined and everything was in perfect order. After the disaster he examined the portion of the step which had been torn away, and formed the opinion that it had been struck by some object in the water. After the salvage of the boat everything was found in perfect order. BOAT DESIGNER'S EVIDENCE. A portion of the broken step was brought into the room, and Mr. Frol Cooper, designer of Miss England II, proceeded to explain with the aid of a large sheet of brown paper representing the remainder of the step how the accident would be caused. The brown paper, together with the piece of step, formed the whole of the step with the exception of a hole in the centre about 18 inches by one foot. This represented the piece still missing. Mr. Cooper said he was certain from certain signs, which he pointed out, that the accident had been caused by the boat hitting some floating object, though he did not suggest that the piece of wood in court was necessarily the one which caused the damage. The effect of striking a submerged object head on could be... | ||