Neat!! What kind of snake, Jean? My neighbor has an albino corn snake - its so pretty and really very sweet Linda -----Original Message----- From: gen-trivia-eng-bounces@rootsweb.com on behalf of J. William Himmelsbach Sent: Tue 9/12/2006 3:23 PM To: GEN-TRIVIA-ENG-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [TRIVVIES] Life can be exciting The other day I was in the garden by the house planting some heather when the dog started to bark. I went over to see what she was excited about.There lying under the sprinkler was a snake. I figured I'd hold the dog and pick up the sprinkler and the snake,with a little prodding would sneek under the house. But then I looked again and saw that it was in the process of devouring a frog. It wasn't going to move until it finished that job. My best bet was to put the dog into the house which I did. The snake finally finished its lunch and went under the house. Never a dull moment in the country. Jean USA ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-TRIVIA-ENG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

-----Original Message----- From: gen-trivia-eng-bounces@rootsweb.com on behalf of Geo. Sent: Tue 9/12/2006 10:25 PM To: Trivs; Smarties Subject: [TRIVVIES] From THE CARLISLE PATRIOT, APRIL 23, 1880. SHORT NEWS ARTICLES I. Posted with permission of the transcriber, Ann Selchick. Geo. Well Ladeda!! When did Pilaff and Spagette become posh?! Linda finishing off her leftover spinach and artichoke pizza ... ummmmmm good! People who are not very hungry may perhaps enjoy a "bread steak and brown sauce" instead of ordinary steak; green peas and mint sauce in these days of fluked sheep is a very good substitute for lamb; a "savory pie" may be resorted to by people accustomed to steak and kidney in their intimate household dinners. But "vegetable pie" looks rather meager, and so does "minced parsnips." Aristocratic dishes are given under the name of Pilaff and Spagette. _______________ ________________ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-TRIVIA-ENG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Nice! Wish I had an older sister like you :-)) Does he live near you, Jean? Linda -----Original Message----- From: gen-trivia-eng-bounces@rootsweb.com on behalf of J. William Himmelsbach Sent: Wed 9/13/2006 2:11 PM To: GEN-TRIVIA-ENG-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [TRIVVIES] Fall project My Mom had a deacon's bench which has been in my barn for 6 years. I asked my younger brother if he could use it. He said that he could so I told him I would refinish it for him. He doesn't know it,but that is going to be his Christmas present.He is not the handy type so he should apprecie it.This is not going to be the easiest refinishing I've done becaus the bench has many spindles. But I'm almost finished the first sanding so things are progressing. Jean USA ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-TRIVIA-ENG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

yes, she is..after two more washings. that oil is horrid to get out long bunny-soft kitty fur. she wasn't drying properly..ergo..she wasn't self grooming. so i picked her up and could still smell petrol/oil. i had obviously gotten quite used to the smell during the first wash. so i rewashed her legs and belly with a strong vinegar/water rinse....boy she was not pleased!..escaped and went into hiding. then kev came home..after dinner he gave her another wash down with dishsoap and baking soda...lol i had visions of her fizzing from the baking soda and vinegar rinse combos. anyhow..we've decided to have another go at her this evening..but we are going to give her a smidge of gravol to calm her down..about a half hour before hopefully her last bath. all of my upholstered furniture is currently covered with bedsheets..it's bad enough to be frequently dunked in *water!!..without being kicked out of the house. the dirty part of the oil is gone from her. but she is still somewhat oily to touch. her fur isn't fluffy in some areas. maybe i should wash her in something like head and shoulders or another dandruff type shampoo. i'm just glad it is only her legs and belly..not the whole cat. she seems quite happy..ah the innocence of the unknowing..yet another bathing lurks for the poor thing..and next week..well next week she is off to the vets for spaying. i think september is going to be her horrid month. later roz On Wednesday, September 13, 2006 1:07 PM, J. William Himmelsbach [SMTP:jwilliam231@verizon.net] wrote: > Roz, I would rather have my snake than an oily kitten. > That was or could have been a real mess. I hope Sunny > is finally back in the house. > Jean USA > > > > > > > --- Roz Griston <r_griston@dccnet.com> wrote: > > > delightful jean..here's how i just spent the last > > hour or so... > > > > we have a 4plus month old kitten. she's very > > curious. yesterday, we > > cleared/sorted the carport. one of the *unique* > > items found and waiting > > for this coming thursday garbage pick up is an open > > gallon container of > > motor oil. it lays flat on it's side..with a rather > > large hole in it so > > the engine oil can be drained into it from the > > car...kev had missed > > getting rid of it after the last oil change. > > > > anyhow, sunny, the kitty is exploring all the stuff > > that has been > > moved. yes!! she did a nice four paw landing in this > > yuckky black > > mess...back flipped or something out of it..i heard > > the > > crash-banging...looked out the window to see sunny > > scampering away with > > very wet looking legs. at first i thought she had > > leapt or fallen into > > the 5 gallon bucket of fish tank plants.. > > > > but, she did appear distressed..and there was no > > water slopped from the > > bucket. it took only moments to recall the dirty > > oil...i checked..yup, > > splash marks etc. meanwhile sunny is flitting here > > and there and trying > > to lick her legs..blechhhh..little > > lick/panic..flee..little lick etc. > > > > i caught her..having first grabbed the roll of paper > > toweling from the > > kitchen...before i went outside. i had her pinned > > with one hand, a > > wiping the excess oil off her legs..looking for one > > or the other of my > > neighbours to be out in their yard so i could call > > for help. > > nada..nothing no-one..so i continued wiping the > > excess oil for about 5 > > mins..i was almost out of towelling..my goal was to > > get the worst of it > > off and then bring sunny in the house for a soapy > > wash up. > > > > just then my neighbour drives home..and looks at me > > wiping my kitty > > down..and getting very dirty papertowel..i ask..can > > you just hold her > > here while i grab some soapy water and rags..ahhh..a > > reprieve..i don't > > have to bring the oil slick cat into the house and > > until i really have > > the worst of it off her. > > > > my neighbour obiliges..but lets me know she is > > expecting an important > > phone call..so..aside from the fact i don't want my > > neighbour being > > stuck with a struggling oil rag..i now have to add > > speed so she doesn't > > miss the call. > > > > anyhow..i arrive with with two ice cream/gallon > > buckets of water..one > > very, very soapy the other just plain warm > > water..plus all available > > rags in the house. > > > > i take over with sunny..my neighbour heads into her > > home to get the > > phone call..i'm not sure how long it took..i do know > > i had not looked > > at the time or anything..but i proceeded to > > wash/rinse my kitten's four > > legs and belly..until i got no more oil markings on > > the rags, etc. i > > then used paper towelling to ensure she really was > > cleaned of the > > oil...okay..so now i have a kitten with no more oil > > on her body..but > > she really is soapy... > > > > and this kitty HATES water, but i have to rinse the > > soap off her > > too...by the time i was at the point of need to > > rinse her..my neighbour > > was back..but i really didn't need the assistance..i > > just kept dunking > > cloths in water and rinsing the kitten.. > > > > on the upside..it is a beautiful, warm to hot day. > > 24C..so now my kitty > > is sitting on the front step with food and water, > > and expected to clean > > the rest of her mishap up by herself... > > > > she is not impressed..i keep hearing the occassional > > forlorn > > yeowlll..she is part siamese. and like why won't i > > let her come in the > > house... > > > > poor little thing..her snooping netted her a partial > > bath and a > > porchside picnic...she should be in the house > > snuggled up on my lap or > > laying sprawled on the couch at this time of day. > > > > the oil bucket is now properly covered..tho i doubt > > she'll be snooping > > in that corner anytime soon. > > > > later > > roz > > > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an > email > > to GEN-TRIVIA-ENG- > > > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > > without the quotes > > in > > > the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > > to GEN-TRIVIA-ENG-request@rootsweb.com with the word > > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > > the body of the message > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-TRIVIA-ENG- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message

My Mom had a deacon's bench which has been in my barn for 6 years. I asked my younger brother if he could use it. He said that he could so I told him I would refinish it for him. He doesn't know it,but that is going to be his Christmas present.He is not the handy type so he should apprecie it.This is not going to be the easiest refinishing I've done becaus the bench has many spindles. But I'm almost finished the first sanding so things are progressing. Jean USA

Roz, I would rather have my snake than an oily kitten. That was or could have been a real mess. I hope Sunny is finally back in the house. Jean USA --- Roz Griston <r_griston@dccnet.com> wrote: > delightful jean..here's how i just spent the last > hour or so... > > we have a 4plus month old kitten. she's very > curious. yesterday, we > cleared/sorted the carport. one of the *unique* > items found and waiting > for this coming thursday garbage pick up is an open > gallon container of > motor oil. it lays flat on it's side..with a rather > large hole in it so > the engine oil can be drained into it from the > car...kev had missed > getting rid of it after the last oil change. > > anyhow, sunny, the kitty is exploring all the stuff > that has been > moved. yes!! she did a nice four paw landing in this > yuckky black > mess...back flipped or something out of it..i heard > the > crash-banging...looked out the window to see sunny > scampering away with > very wet looking legs. at first i thought she had > leapt or fallen into > the 5 gallon bucket of fish tank plants.. > > but, she did appear distressed..and there was no > water slopped from the > bucket. it took only moments to recall the dirty > oil...i checked..yup, > splash marks etc. meanwhile sunny is flitting here > and there and trying > to lick her legs..blechhhh..little > lick/panic..flee..little lick etc. > > i caught her..having first grabbed the roll of paper > toweling from the > kitchen...before i went outside. i had her pinned > with one hand, a > wiping the excess oil off her legs..looking for one > or the other of my > neighbours to be out in their yard so i could call > for help. > nada..nothing no-one..so i continued wiping the > excess oil for about 5 > mins..i was almost out of towelling..my goal was to > get the worst of it > off and then bring sunny in the house for a soapy > wash up. > > just then my neighbour drives home..and looks at me > wiping my kitty > down..and getting very dirty papertowel..i ask..can > you just hold her > here while i grab some soapy water and rags..ahhh..a > reprieve..i don't > have to bring the oil slick cat into the house and > until i really have > the worst of it off her. > > my neighbour obiliges..but lets me know she is > expecting an important > phone call..so..aside from the fact i don't want my > neighbour being > stuck with a struggling oil rag..i now have to add > speed so she doesn't > miss the call. > > anyhow..i arrive with with two ice cream/gallon > buckets of water..one > very, very soapy the other just plain warm > water..plus all available > rags in the house. > > i take over with sunny..my neighbour heads into her > home to get the > phone call..i'm not sure how long it took..i do know > i had not looked > at the time or anything..but i proceeded to > wash/rinse my kitten's four > legs and belly..until i got no more oil markings on > the rags, etc. i > then used paper towelling to ensure she really was > cleaned of the > oil...okay..so now i have a kitten with no more oil > on her body..but > she really is soapy... > > and this kitty HATES water, but i have to rinse the > soap off her > too...by the time i was at the point of need to > rinse her..my neighbour > was back..but i really didn't need the assistance..i > just kept dunking > cloths in water and rinsing the kitten.. > > on the upside..it is a beautiful, warm to hot day. > 24C..so now my kitty > is sitting on the front step with food and water, > and expected to clean > the rest of her mishap up by herself... > > she is not impressed..i keep hearing the occassional > forlorn > yeowlll..she is part siamese. and like why won't i > let her come in the > house... > > poor little thing..her snooping netted her a partial > bath and a > porchside picnic...she should be in the house > snuggled up on my lap or > laying sprawled on the couch at this time of day. > > the oil bucket is now properly covered..tho i doubt > she'll be snooping > in that corner anytime soon. > > later > roz > > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > to GEN-TRIVIA-ENG- > > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes > in > > the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > to GEN-TRIVIA-ENG-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message >

Posted with permission of the transcriber, Ann Selchick. Geo. THE CARLISLE PATRIOT, APRIL 23, 1880. SHORT NEWS ARTICLES I. _______ HOW THIEVES ARE MADE. How thieves are made was shown on Wednesday at Salford Police Court, when a child ten years old made his third appearance on charges of felony. His first offence was committed when but eight years of age, and he follows the career of two elder brothers, both of whom have been sent to industrial schools. The parents of these three young criminals had no other sons, or it may be that further expense would be entailed upon the ratepayers in the reformation of these victims of parental neglect. _____ VEGETARIANISM. Vegetarianism (says a London correspondent) is making strides. It has already a restaurant in Farringdon Street, London, devoted to it. The proprietor claims for his preparations that they are the most nutritious of all goods; they are certainly cheap. A soup costs three pence, a plat four pence, and a pudding three pence. Haricots and lentils are prominent constituents of the dishes. People who are not very hungry may perhaps enjoy a "bread steak and brown sauce" instead of ordinary steak; green peas and mint sauce in these days of fluked sheep is a very good substitute for lamb; a "savory pie" may be resorted to by people accustomed to steak and kidney in their intimate household dinners. But "vegetable pie" looks rather meager, and so does "minced parsnips." Aristocratic dishes are given under the name of Pilaff and Spagette. _______________ In one of the suburbs a family was seated at dinner when the door bell rang, Bridget was sent to the door. It was noticed that she held a long parley, and it was surmised, consequently, that there was some element of uncertainty in the interview. On the return of the servant, the master of the house said, "Well Bridget, who was it?" To which Bridget replied, with all the unsuspecting sincerity of her race, "It was a gentleman, sir, looking for the wrong house." _________________

Poor kitty......oh how they hate water. :) DiDi http://photobucket.com/albums/d100/didi_45 delightful jean. here's how I just spent the last hour or so... we have a 4plus month old kitten. she's very curious. yesterday, we cleared/sorted the carport. one of the *unique* items found and waiting for this coming thursday garbage pick up is an open gallon container of motor oil. it lays flat on it's side..with a rather large hole in it so the engine oil can be drained into it from the car...kev had missed getting rid of it after the last oil change. anyhow, sunny, the kitty is exploring all the stuff that has been moved. yes!! she did a nice four paw landing in this yuckky black mess...back flipped or something out of it..i heard the crash-banging...looked out the window to see sunny scampering away with very wet looking legs. at first i thought she had leapt or fallen into the 5 gallon bucket of fish tank plants.. but, she did appear distressed..and there was no water slopped from the bucket. it took only moments to recall the dirty oil...i checked..yup, splash marks etc. meanwhile sunny is flitting here and there and trying to lick her legs..blechhhh..little lick/panic..flee..little lick etc. i caught her..having first grabbed the roll of paper toweling from the kitchen...before i went outside. i had her pinned with one hand, a wiping the excess oil off her legs..looking for one or the other of my neighbours to be out in their yard so i could call for help. nada..nothing no-one..so i continued wiping the excess oil for about 5 mins..i was almost out of towelling..my goal was to get the worst of it off and then bring sunny in the house for a soapy wash up. just then my neighbour drives home..and looks at me wiping my kitty down..and getting very dirty papertowel..i ask..can you just hold her here while i grab some soapy water and rags..ahhh..a reprieve..i don't have to bring the oil slick cat into the house and until i really have the worst of it off her. my neighbour obiliges..but lets me know she is expecting an important phone call..so..aside from the fact i don't want my neighbour being stuck with a struggling oil rag..i now have to add speed so she doesn't miss the call. anyhow..i arrive with with two ice cream/gallon buckets of water..one very, very soapy the other just plain warm water..plus all available rags in the house. i take over with sunny..my neighbour heads into her home to get the phone call..i'm not sure how long it took..i do know i had not looked at the time or anything..but i proceeded to wash/rinse my kitten's four legs and belly..until i got no more oil markings on the rags, etc. i then used paper towelling to ensure she really was cleaned of the oil...okay..so now i have a kitten with no more oil on her body..but she really is soapy... and this kitty HATES water, but i have to rinse the soap off her too...by the time i was at the point of need to rinse her..my neighbour was back..but i really didn't need the assistance..i just kept dunking cloths in water and rinsing the kitten.. on the upside..it is a beautiful, warm to hot day. 24C..so now my kitty is sitting on the front step with food and water, and expected to clean the rest of her mishap up by herself... she is not impressed..i keep hearing the occassional forlorn yeowlll..she is part siamese. and like why won't i let her come in the house... poor little thing..her snooping netted her a partial bath and a porchside picnic...she should be in the house snuggled up on my lap or laying sprawled on the couch at this time of day. the oil bucket is now properly covered..tho i doubt she'll be snooping in that corner anytime soon. later roz On Tuesday, September 12, 2006 2:24 PM, J. William Himmelsbach [SMTP:jwilliam231@verizon.net] wrote: > The other day I was in the garden by the house > planting some heather when the dog started to bark. I > went over to see what she was excited about.There > lying under the sprinkler was a snake. I figured I'd > hold the dog and pick up the sprinkler and the > snake,with a little prodding would sneek under the > house. But then I looked again and saw that it was in > the process of devouring a frog. It wasn't going to > move until it finished that job. My best bet was to > put the dog into the house which I did. The snake > finally finished its lunch and went under the house. > Never a dull moment in the country. > Jean USA > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-TRIVIA-ENG- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-TRIVIA-ENG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

OMG!!!!!!!!!! How scary DiDi http://photobucket.com/albums/d100/didi_45 The other day I was in the garden by the house planting some heather when the dog started to bark. I went over to see what she was excited about.There lying under the sprinkler was a snake. I figured I'd hold the dog and pick up the sprinkler and the snake,with a little prodding would sneek under the house. But then I looked again and saw that it was in the process of devouring a frog. It wasn't going to move until it finished that job. My best bet was to put the dog into the house which I did. The snake finally finished its lunch and went under the house. Never a dull moment in the country. Jean USA ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-TRIVIA-ENG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

delightful jean..here's how i just spent the last hour or so... we have a 4plus month old kitten. she's very curious. yesterday, we cleared/sorted the carport. one of the *unique* items found and waiting for this coming thursday garbage pick up is an open gallon container of motor oil. it lays flat on it's side..with a rather large hole in it so the engine oil can be drained into it from the car...kev had missed getting rid of it after the last oil change. anyhow, sunny, the kitty is exploring all the stuff that has been moved. yes!! she did a nice four paw landing in this yuckky black mess...back flipped or something out of it..i heard the crash-banging...looked out the window to see sunny scampering away with very wet looking legs. at first i thought she had leapt or fallen into the 5 gallon bucket of fish tank plants.. but, she did appear distressed..and there was no water slopped from the bucket. it took only moments to recall the dirty oil...i checked..yup, splash marks etc. meanwhile sunny is flitting here and there and trying to lick her legs..blechhhh..little lick/panic..flee..little lick etc. i caught her..having first grabbed the roll of paper toweling from the kitchen...before i went outside. i had her pinned with one hand, a wiping the excess oil off her legs..looking for one or the other of my neighbours to be out in their yard so i could call for help. nada..nothing no-one..so i continued wiping the excess oil for about 5 mins..i was almost out of towelling..my goal was to get the worst of it off and then bring sunny in the house for a soapy wash up. just then my neighbour drives home..and looks at me wiping my kitty down..and getting very dirty papertowel..i ask..can you just hold her here while i grab some soapy water and rags..ahhh..a reprieve..i don't have to bring the oil slick cat into the house and until i really have the worst of it off her. my neighbour obiliges..but lets me know she is expecting an important phone call..so..aside from the fact i don't want my neighbour being stuck with a struggling oil rag..i now have to add speed so she doesn't miss the call. anyhow..i arrive with with two ice cream/gallon buckets of water..one very, very soapy the other just plain warm water..plus all available rags in the house. i take over with sunny..my neighbour heads into her home to get the phone call..i'm not sure how long it took..i do know i had not looked at the time or anything..but i proceeded to wash/rinse my kitten's four legs and belly..until i got no more oil markings on the rags, etc. i then used paper towelling to ensure she really was cleaned of the oil...okay..so now i have a kitten with no more oil on her body..but she really is soapy... and this kitty HATES water, but i have to rinse the soap off her too...by the time i was at the point of need to rinse her..my neighbour was back..but i really didn't need the assistance..i just kept dunking cloths in water and rinsing the kitten.. on the upside..it is a beautiful, warm to hot day. 24C..so now my kitty is sitting on the front step with food and water, and expected to clean the rest of her mishap up by herself... she is not impressed..i keep hearing the occassional forlorn yeowlll..she is part siamese. and like why won't i let her come in the house... poor little thing..her snooping netted her a partial bath and a porchside picnic...she should be in the house snuggled up on my lap or laying sprawled on the couch at this time of day. the oil bucket is now properly covered..tho i doubt she'll be snooping in that corner anytime soon. later roz On Tuesday, September 12, 2006 2:24 PM, J. William Himmelsbach [SMTP:jwilliam231@verizon.net] wrote: > The other day I was in the garden by the house > planting some heather when the dog started to bark. I > went over to see what she was excited about.There > lying under the sprinkler was a snake. I figured I'd > hold the dog and pick up the sprinkler and the > snake,with a little prodding would sneek under the > house. But then I looked again and saw that it was in > the process of devouring a frog. It wasn't going to > move until it finished that job. My best bet was to > put the dog into the house which I did. The snake > finally finished its lunch and went under the house. > Never a dull moment in the country. > Jean USA > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-TRIVIA-ENG- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message

The other day I was in the garden by the house planting some heather when the dog started to bark. I went over to see what she was excited about.There lying under the sprinkler was a snake. I figured I'd hold the dog and pick up the sprinkler and the snake,with a little prodding would sneek under the house. But then I looked again and saw that it was in the process of devouring a frog. It wasn't going to move until it finished that job. My best bet was to put the dog into the house which I did. The snake finally finished its lunch and went under the house. Never a dull moment in the country. Jean USA

The Times, Saturday, Feb 03, 1866; pg. 10; Issue 25412; col F THE LOSS OF THE LONDON. ----------------------- OFFICIAL INQUIRY. [continued] By Mr. O'DOWD. - At daylight the water had still increased, and the ship was gradually going down. She was head to wind then. I heard Captain MARTIN give orders about the boats that morning. He was on the poop and he ordered them to be got ready. The two pinnaces and the port cutter were then cleared ready for lowering, and bread and water put into them. I know this was done with the starboard pinnace. I am not sure about the bread and water being put in the other pinnace. Those pinnace boats were iron. On the starboard pinnace being lowered she was at once swamped; there were four of the crew and one passenger in her; they all got on board again. She was lowered by a tackle at each end. I think the same thing might have happened to a timber boat. She was lowered by the crew. She was the only boat lowered then. At 2 o'clock Captain MARTIN ordered the port cutter to be launched. In the meantime no other boat had been launched. She was lowered safely. I and six or seven others were in her. She had common tackle falls and no patent lowering apparatus. We lowered ourselves from the boat herself. I, as second engineer, was supposed to have charge of that boat. The captain came to me about five minutes to 2, told me the boat was ready for lowering, and bid me go into her. I said I did not think it was any good. He answered that it was the only chance. He again remarked that there was no chance in the ship, but there was some in the boat, and I then proceeded towards the boat, and when I was stepping in he shook hands with me and bid me "Good by" and God-speed. I then went into the boat, and she was lowered in a few minutes. The first engineer and several others, to the number of 19 altogether, got in after. We then pushed off as soon as we could, seeing that the ship was going down. In four or five minutes after we left the ship I saw her go down stern foremost. We had a compass on the boat. Mr. TRAILL. - Was anything said about the captain going or not going? Mr. GREENHILL. - Not that I heard. Mr. TRAILL. - Did he give you a course? Mr. GREENHILL. - Before the boat was lowered one of the sailors called out to the captain, "What is the course?" The captain replied, "E.N.E., 80 miles to Brest." Captain HARRIS. - I believe you had very little hope of saving your life? Mr. GREENHILL. - None whatever. By Mr. TRAILL. - We shipped a good deal of water in the boat, but baled it out with tin cans and a bucket. We had two or three cans on board. We were obliged to throw our fresh water out as the salt water got into it. After 20 hours we were taken into the Italian bark. By Captain BAKER. - Both the lifeboats had been carried away from the London. By Captain HARRIS. - There was no one near me when the captain told me to take to the boat. Some of the crew might have heard him. When I lowered my boat there were the port pinnace and the jolly-boat on deck. They went down with the ship. One of the cutters had been stove in. After we shoved off I noticed a rush to the remaining pinnace, which was on the davits. But previously, after the starboard pinnace had swamped, there was an indifference as to making any further attempt in the boats. About noon on that day the foresail was set and the ship was got before the wind; but I suppose, finding that she shipped more water, she was again brought to the wind. Every time the ship went to leeward she was taking the water in by tons over the gunwale as she lurched in the trough of the sea. The sliding door of the screw tunnel was fastened by a screw from between the decks. Captain HARRIS. - Could it be possible that the door was not properly closed? Mr. GREENHILL. - It is possible, but very improbable that it was not properly closed after I shut it. I am sure I closed it down. The substance of the bulkhead on which the door was fixed was of 5/8ths of an inch. In reply to other questions from Captain HARRIS, the witness said: - The after bulkhead of the engine-room came up to the lower deck. The ship made very little water indeed before she shipped the heavy seas. The sluice-valves were opened from the engine-room to the main hold, and had been open from the time we left Plymouth, so that had there been any water in the main hold we must have seen it running into the engine-room through those valves. I did not hear anything said by Captain MARTIN or any other of the officers as to the height of the barometer. Captain MARTIN came down the hatchway to the lower deck and spoke to me repeatedly during the night after the fires were out. He spoke to me of his hopes of saving the ship by sailing her. They were carrying the water up in buckets from the lower saloon through the upper saloon and up to the upper deck. We had a boiler on deck for the donkey engine, and I believe that engine was working its pumps when the ship went down. The pumps it was working drew from the main hold. The sluices between it and the engine-room were kept open just sufficiently to allow enough of water into the main hold to be pumped out. The coals stowed on deck were thrown overboard, and the forward bunkers had been opened a few hours. There were no coals on deck at the time the skylight was washed away. For many hours before I left the ship I was satisfied she was settling down by the stern. Her bows were visibly up. The screw had not been hoisted, but was in its place when I left the ship. About 8 o'clock on the evening of the 10th I went along the tunnel and found the stuffing box quite tight. Mr. TRAILL. - The water in the engine-room alone would not have settled the ship down on her stern hatchway. By Captain HARRIS. - I never heard that the topgallant had come down by the run and broken the skylight. Since I came home I have heard it reported that some spars had come down. There were several mattresses and pieces of canvas hanging down from the spars into the engine-room, but none of those things had come into the engine-room and stopped the engines, and it is not true that the engine-room was blocked up by spars. By Captain BAKER. - I sounded the engine-room at 1 o'clock on the day I left the ship, and found the depth of water there 19 feet. Captain MARTIN was present at the time. When we hove to after the attempt to run before the wind, I think the mizen staysail was set, but I am not certain. I had no difficulty in lowering the boat in which I got away. I believe one end of the pinnace, the boat which swamped, was down before the other. The inquiry was then adjourned till to-day. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ End of Day 5 of the inquiry. Petra

The Times, Saturday, Feb 03, 1866; pg. 10; Issue 25412; col F THE LOSS OF THE LONDON. ----------------------- OFFICIAL INQUIRY. [continued] Mr. John GREENHILL examined. - I was second engineer on board the London during her last voyage. I hold a certificate of competency from the Board of Trade, given, after examination, in 1863. I joined the London on her first voyage as third engineer, and became second engineer on her last. When we left London for the last voyage the engines were in very good condition indeed. After the second voyage they merely required cleaning. She had 50 tons of coal on deck when we were leaving the West India dock. We consumed somewhere about 47 tons between London and Plymouth. The quantity on deck when leaving Plymouth was 50 tons, as we got a fresh supply there. I produce a receipt for these coals. From London to Plymouth the engines went very well indeed. While we were at sea on the morning of Monday, the 8th, it was blowing, but not very hard. On the morning of that day, at 7 o'clock, Captain MARTIN gave me directions to stop the engines. He did not say why, but it is a common occurrence to stop the engines of auxiliary screw steamers when the wind is blowing. Towards the afternoon the wind moderated, and at 5 in the afternoon we got up steam again, and continued steaming till Wednesday evening. The wind kept increasing towards the 9th. Some time during the morning of the 9th some of the spars were carried away, but I don't know at what hour. I saw them after they were carried away. The foretopmast and the topgallantmast, the royal mast and the maintopgallantmast were hanging by the rigging when I saw them. The jibboom I did not see; I believe it was gone. I heard of the occurrence when they were carried away, but I did not go on deck at the time to see them. When I did see them they were swinging, but not much. They were aloft. From what I heard I believe every exertion had been made to secure them, and I saw them when they were secured. They had got the jibboom on board again, and it was lashed to a spare topmast. The port lifeboat was washed away on the Tuesday, but I don't know at what hour. The gale continued to increase during the whole of Tuesday. The chief engineer kept his watches regularly up to the Wednesday, when he became unwell and was not able to do so. At 3 o'clock on the morning of Wednesday we were going half speed, and the captain ordered that full speed should be got up; he gave me the order, and told me the reason of it was that he intended to turn the ship round and run for Plymouth. I cannot say how the wind was then. Up to that time the engines were in good working order, and the skylight all perfect. I never studied the compass, and I really cannot tell in what direction we were in as to the wind. Between 7 and 8 the same morning, I believe, we were still head to the wind. I suppose the ship bore up when the captain gave the order, but I am no sailor, and cannot of my own knowledge say. After we put on steam the engines went quicker, but not very much. There would be some difference in the revolutions as between going with the wind and going against it, but not very much. I understand the wind had changed after we put about. I have no doubt the order given by the captain was at once carried out. During the 10th it was blowing very hard, and a cross sea was running. At half-past 10 o'clock on the night of the 10th the engine-room skylight was washed away. I was in the engine-room at the time. A very large body of water came down, and within three minutes from that occurrence the fires were out. A succession of seas rushed in. The engines did not stop for seven or eight minutes after the fires were put out. I was well acquainted with the construction of the engine-room hatchway. It was composed of teak wood. The framework was not smashed by the sea; but a deal of the glass and some of the wood of the small parts of the skylight came down into the engine-room with the sea. As far as I know, the body of the skylight was carried away. The skylight was closed at the time, fastened inside and outside, and battened down with tarpaulin. The tarpaulin was battened with slips of wood and nails round the combing. It was battened to the combing. Captain HARRIS. - How did the sea get through the skylight if it was so battened down? Mr. GREENHILL. - That is the mystery. Two men were washed down through the hatchway, with the water and glass - one passenger and the other a sailor, I believe; and they told me that the skylight was gone. The skylight had been battened down all day on Wednesday. By Mr. O'DOWD. - The door between the engine-room and the bulkhead, the door of the screw tunnel, was open before this. I shut it in about ten minutes after the water first came down. The bottom of the tunnel-door is 6ft. 11in. from the ship's bottom, and the fires are 5ft. When the fires were put out the water was not within 18in. of the lower part of the tunnel door. I am positive that no water in any quantity had passed into the tunnel when I shut the door. The door was a sliding one, working in a groove, and fastening with a screw. After it was shut no water could have entered the tunnel, unless the bulkhead gave way. Captain BAKER. - Which I have no doubt it did before the ship went down. Mr. GREENHILL. - Very possibly. By Mr. O'DOWD. - I came on deck about a quarter to 11 o'clock, after the fires were out. I daresay there were about five feet of water in the engine-room when I left it. When I came on deck the chief officer and several of the crew and passengers were endeavouring to secure the hatch by means of tarpaulins, sails, mattresses, blankets, and whatever else they could find, having placed ladders, pieces of wood, and spars across the aperture as supports. To some extent this was effective in preventing the water from going down. They kept on in a similar manner trying to stop it till 4 in the morning. By 4 in the morning there were 14 feet of water in the engine-room, the whole of which, I believe, had come in through the hatchway, in spite of all the efforts to keep it out. At that hour the stern ports were driven in, and then I noticed a considerable increase of water between the decks. These ports are above the deck; they are a sort of window. By Mr. TRAILL. - I could not notice that she was settling down by the stern then. By Captain BAKER. - Certainly, she was settling down. I could notice that. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Day 5 of the inquiry to continue..... Petra

The Times, Saturday, Feb 03, 1866; pg. 10; Issue 25412; col F THE LOSS OF THE LONDON. ----------------------- OFFICIAL INQUIRY. [continued] Mr. John GREENHILL examined. - I was second engineer on board the London during her last voyage. I hold a certificate of competency from the Board of Trade, given, after examination, in 1863. I joined the London on her first voyage as third engineer, and became second engineer on her last. When we left London for the last voyage the engines were in very good condition indeed. After the second voyage they merely required cleaning. She had 50 tons of coal on deck when we were leaving the West India dock. We consumed somewhere about 47 tons between London and Plymouth. The quantity on deck when leaving Plymouth was 50 tons, as we got a fresh supply there. I produce a receipt for these coals. From London to Plymouth the engines went very well indeed. While we were at sea on the morning of Monday, the 8th, it was blowing, but not very hard. On the morning of that day, at 7 o'clock, Captain MARTIN gave me directions to stop the engines. He did not say why, but it is a common occurrence to stop the engines of auxiliary screw steamers when the wind is blowing. Towards the afternoon the wind moderated, and at 5 in the afternoon we got up steam again, and continued steaming till Wednesday evening. The wind kept increasing towards the 9th. Some time during the morning of the 9th some of the spars were carried away, but I don't know at what hour. I saw them after they were carried away. The foretopmast and the topgallantmast, the royal mast and the maintopgallantmast were hanging by the rigging when I saw them. The jibboom I did not see; I believe it was gone. I heard of the occurrence when they were carried away, but I did not go on deck at the time to see them. When I did see them they were swinging, but not much. They were aloft. From what I heard I believe every exertion had been made to secure them, and I saw them when they were secured. They had got the jibboom on board again, and it was lashed to a spare topmast. The port lifeboat was washed away on the Tuesday, but I don't know at what hour. The gale continued to increase during the whole of Tuesday. The chief engineer kept his watches regularly up to the Wednesday, when he became unwell and was not able to do so. At 3 o'clock on the morning of Wednesday we were going half speed, and the captain ordered that full speed should be got up; he gave me the order, and told me the reason of it was that he intended to turn the ship round and run for Plymouth. I cannot say how the wind was then. Up to that time the engines were in good working order, and the skylight all perfect. I never studied the compass, and I really cannot tell in what direction we were in as to the wind. Between 7 and 8 the same morning, I believe, we were still head to the wind. I suppose the ship bore up when the captain gave the order, but I am no sailor, and cannot of my own knowledge say. After we put on steam the engines went quicker, but not very much. There would be some difference in the revolutions as between going with the wind and going against it, but not very much. I understand the wind had changed after we put about. I have no doubt the order given by the captain was at once carried out. During the 10th it was blowing very hard, and a cross sea was running. At half-past 10 o'clock on the night of the 10th the engine-room skylight was washed away. I was in the engine-room at the time. A very large body of water came down, and within three minutes from that occurrence the fires were out. A succession of seas rushed in. The engines did not stop for seven or eight minutes after the fires were put out. I was well acquainted with the construction of the engine-room hatchway. It was composed of teak wood. The framework was not smashed by the sea; but a deal of the glass and some of the wood of the small parts of the skylight came down into the engine-room with the sea. As far as I know, the body of the skylight was carried away. The skylight was closed at the time, fastened inside and outside, and battened down with tarpaulin. The tarpaulin was battened with slips of wood and nails round the combing. It was battened to the combing. Captain HARRIS. - How did the sea get through the skylight if it was so battened down? Mr. GREENHILL. - That is the mystery. Two men were washed down through the hatchway, with the water and glass - one passenger and the other a sailor, I believe; and they told me that the skylight was gone. The skylight had been battened down all day on Wednesday. By Mr. O'DOWD. - The door between the engine-room and the bulkhead, the door of the screw tunnel, was open before this. I shut it in about ten minutes after the water first came down. The bottom of the tunnel-door is 6ft. 11in. from the ship's bottom, and the fires are 5ft. When the fires were put out the water was not within 18in. of the lower part of the tunnel door. I am positive that no water in any quantity had passed into the tunnel when I shut the door. The door was a sliding one, working in a groove, and fastening with a screw. After it was shut no water could have entered the tunnel, unless the bulkhead gave way. Captain BAKER. - Which I have no doubt it did before the ship went down. Mr. GREENHILL. - Very possibly. By Mr. O'DOWD. - I came on deck about a quarter to 11 o'clock, after the fires were out. I daresay there were about five feet of water in the engine-room when I left it. When I came on deck the chief officer and several of the crew and passengers were endeavouring to secure the hatch by means of tarpaulins, sails, mattresses, blankets, and whatever else they could find, having placed ladders, pieces of wood, and spars across the aperture as supports. To some extent this was effective in preventing the water from going down. They kept on in a similar manner trying to stop it till 4 in the morning. By 4 in the morning there were 14 feet of water in the engine-room, the whole of which, I believe, had come in through the hatchway, in spite of all the efforts to keep it out. At that hour the stern ports were driven in, and then I noticed a considerable increase of water between the decks. These ports are above the deck; they are a sort of window. By Mr. TRAILL. - I could not notice that she was settling down by the stern then. By Captain BAKER. - Certainly, she was settling down. I could notice that. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Day 5 of the inquiry to continue..... Petra

The Times, Saturday, Feb 03, 1866; pg. 10; Issue 25412; col F THE LOSS OF THE LONDON. ----------------------- OFFICIAL INQUIRY. [continued] Mr. JONES said he had not observed. Within about ten minutes after the big sea had come down the engines stopped. They did not stop immediately the fires were put out, because there was steam on at the time. When they found the fires out the engineers shut the door upon the after bulkhead - the door which led to the screw tunnel. They then went up on deck. At that time there was not a continuous downpour into the engine-room, but the water streamed down as the vessel shipped seas. She was labouring very heavily, and almost continually shipping seas. Tarpaulins and canvass were brought, which the men tried to nail down over the aperture. They had the flying jibboom there, which they tried to put over the aperture, but it was blowing a hurricane, and the canvas and the men who were trying to batten it down washed into the lee scuppers. He saw the forward pumps going, and the crew behaved well. He did not hear any complaints against the crew. Many of the passengers assisted at the pumps, and they were also baling out the water with buckets. The saloon as well as the steerage passengers worked to relieve the ship. He could not say what canvas the ship was then carrying. When rolled into the lee scupper in the morning his arm was severely hurt, but no bones were broken. Subsequently, when getting into the boat in which he was saved, he was struck on the head with an oar. From half-past 10 on the night of the 10th up to the morning of the 11th nothing particular occurred that he witnessed, but he was not much on the deck in the interval. He came on deck about daylight, and he then noticed that the ship had been making water, that she was continually being washed, that she was in the trough of the sea, and that she was in a most disabled condition. About 2 o'clock in the afternoon of the 11th he was between decks, near the engine-room; he ran up and across the deck, and jumped from the poop into the port cutter, which had been launched previously. The boat rose with the sea, and he had to make scarcely any descent from the gunwale in getting into her. She rowed off immediately. As witness was passing from between the main decks he met for the last time the captain, who was going towards the saloon. The captain asked him how he felt, and he replied, "Not well." He thought the captain's remark had reference to the state of his mind rather than that of his body. On second thoughts he could not say the exact time at which he met Captain MARTIN. It might have been an hour or two before he got into the boat. The passengers and crew were calm. Among the passengers he heard preaching and praying and some groaning, but no screams. All hope of the ship had been given up. He believed he was the last to get into the boat. The ship was about 80 or 90 yards from them, and they had left her about four minutes, when the ship went down. She went down stern foremost. Those in the boat saw her for a moment with her bows up; then the boat itself sank in the trough of the sea. When it rose again not a vestige of the ship was to be seen. There were a few biscuits and some vegetables in the boat, but no spirits, wine, or water that he was aware of. He and his companions remained about 20 hours in the boat. The boat did not make much water; what she did make they baled out with a tin pot. The sea was very rough; there were five oars, and generally they had sufficient way on the boat to escape the seas as they came down towards them. On the morning of the 13th a bark was sighted, when they hoisted an old shirt on the top of a pole by way of signal. When the crew of the bark saw the boat they waved their hats and signalled for the boat to approach them. The boat did so and a log line was thrown to the boat's crew from the bark. Several longer lines were thrown after the log line, and all the boat's passengers, amounting to 19 (16 of the crew and three passengers), were pulled up on the bark; all hands on board the latter assisting them, except the man at the wheel. The wind had lulled somewhat by this time, but it was still rough. It was his opinion that the boat was steered principally by the oarsmen and not from the rudder. He heard no one in particular give orders. There was shouting every moment - sometimes to go forward and sometimes to back oars; and it was his opinion that the boat was principally governed by the oars. In the broadest sense of the term, the captain of the bark, the Marianople, behaved with the greatest kindness and generosity. By Captain HARRIS. - He had been at sea six years. He had served his time as an engineer, and had been chief engineer for 2½ years. He had received a first-class certificate for competency on examination. He had been in the West India mail service, and subsequently had been in a small boat on the English coast. The consumption of coal on board the London after she left Plymouth was from 8 cwt. to 10 cwt. an hour, or about 12 tons a day. Up to the time the ship went down they had been burning the coals they took in at Plymouth. They had not commenced to use the coal in the bunkers. Up to the morning of the 8th of January they had been going with the ship's head to the wind. The ship was then put under canvas, because the engines were not able to make way against the wind. It is usual in auxiliary screw vessels to ship the screw under such circumstances. He believed she was still going head to wind on the 9th, when the masts were carried away. The engines were then driving her against the wind, but she could scarcely keep headway - not more than 2½ or 3 knots an hour. At this time the bilge pumps were at work, but the suctions were dry. There was no appearance of water in the engine-room, and no intimation had been given to the engineers that the ship was making water elsewhere. There was a donkey engine on board, but no additional pumps were being used. The bilge pumps are always working when the engine is working, but generally they are sucking dry. By Captain BAKER. - On the night of the 10th when he left the engine-room he thought the engine was making about from 48 to 50 revolutions, which would be a speed of about three knots an hour. A little spray had been coming into the engine-room, but no water to speak of before the very heavy sea. Captain BAKER asked whether any of the spars which were lying about could have by possibility come in contact with the skylight of the engine-room. Mr. JONES replied that they could not when he saw them. He could not say how the ship was going when the very heavy sea struck her. Captain BAKER asked how many feet of water were in the engine-room when the witness last left it. Mr. JONES said he thought there were about 14ft. That, he thought, was about midnight of the 10th, but he could not exactly say. He did not notice then whether there were any sails on the ship. He could not say how the engine-room skylight was fastened as he had been so short a time on board the London. Captain HARRIS asked the witness whether the water would not have flowed into the tunnel of the screw before they shut the door of the bulkhead. Mr. JONES replied that they shut the door immediately - as soon as the engines were disabled. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Day 5 of the inquiry to continue with the examination of the second engineer..... Petra

The Times, Saturday, Feb 03, 1866; pg. 10; Issue 25412; col F THE LOSS OF THE LONDON. ----------------------- OFFICIAL INQUIRY. The inquiry directed by the Board of Trade into the circumstances under which the London foundered in the Bay of Biscay on the 11th ult. was resumed in the Greenwich Police-court yesterday, before Mr. TRAILL, the Police Magistrate, and Captain H. HARRIS and Captain BAKER, nautical assessors. As on the previous days of the inquiry, Mr. O'DOWD appeared for the Board of Trade. Mr. Clifford WIGRAM, one of the owners of the ship, was also present; and Mr. BURRELL, solicitor, of Glasgow, who lost a son in the London, was in attendance on his own behalf and that of Mrs. TENNENT, of Edinburgh, who lost her husband. The witnesses examined yesterday were Mr. JONES and Mr. GREENHILL, the first and second engineers of the London. Their evidence is of great importance, particularly that of Mr. GREENHILL. It was during his watch the tremendous sea broke over the vessel which swept away the engine skylight, carried two men bodily down the hatchway, instantaneously filled the engine-room with water to a depth of 5ft., almost as suddenly extinguished the whole of the boiler furnaces, and stopped the engines within seven or eight minutes. It will be found that one of the nautical assessors anxiously inquired as to whether the door in the bulkhead separating the engine-room from the screw tunnel was shut by the engineers immediately the heavy sea had descended into the former. Both the witnesses stated that it was, and one of them said that he himself had closed it and screwed it tight. This is a point of great moment. The tunnel is some 65ft. or 66ft. long, 8ft. deep, and 4ft. wide; and if filled, the presence in the after part of the ship of such an immense volume of water as the tunnel would contain would go far to account for her settling down by the stern. It will be seen that by four o'clock in the morning of the day on which she sank the water was 14ft. deep in the engine room, and that by 1 p.m., about an hour before she went down, it had risen to 19ft. GREENHILL was much affected while detailing his last interview with Captain MARTIN, in which the latter directed him to take to the boat, and, replying to the question as to the course the boat's crew should steer, cried out "N.N.E., 80 miles to Brest." Four minutes afterwards the ship, with its heroic commander and 219 other souls sank, and not a vestige of the London remained to be seen on the surface of the waves. On Monday, in examining witnesses, Captain HARRIS asked whether the shutters on the skylights of the engine room hatchway in ships of war were used to prevent the men from "going down" when the ship was cleared for action. In consequence of some misapprehension in the minds of naval officers as to his meaning, Captain HARRIS wishes it to be understood that he used the words "going down" in the sense of "falling down." At the sitting of the Court yesterday, Mr. John JONES was examined, and said he held a certificate of competency from the Board of Trade as first engineer. He was chief engineer of the London on her last voyage. He had not previously acted as engineer in that vessel. The ship left London on the 28th of December. On the passage from London to Plymouth the machinery acted without giving those in charge of it the slightest trouble. Mr. GREENHILL was the second engineer, and there was a third engineer on board. There were also a leading stoker, storekeeper, six firemen, and three coal-trimmers in the engine-room. The fires were lighted when the London left the East India Dock, though she was towed by a steam tug. The engines of the ship were going slowly - about 30 revolutions a minute, on the way down to Gravesend. When the weather became rough off Dungenness the engines were working well, the speed being about six knots. A log was kept in the engine-room, but it is lost. Nothing particular happened in his department between London and Plymouth, nor while the ship was at the latter port. They had five or six tons of coal on board when they arrived at Plymouth, on the morning of the 5th of January. There they replaced the coal which they had consumed on the passage down from London. The coal put in at Plymouth was stowed round the engine-room hatch and the steam chest. He should think that they had not 20 tons on the deck when they met with their misfortune. This was on the 11th of January, the ship having left Plymouth on the morning of the 6th, or just after midnight of the 5th. In the storm he saw some of the coals washing about the deck. This was towards the last. He saw none washed down below, but he observed lumps rolling about as the vessel shipped seas. It had broken loose from the sacks. He did not see any thrown overboard after it had broken loose. Before the vessel shipped the big or disastrous sea he was thrown against the lee scuppers and his shoulder was injured. On leaving the breakwater at Plymouth the ship proceeded at about 8 knots an hour. The weather was then very mild, and continued so during the whole of the day. It freshened at from 6 to 7 in the evening, but nothing to speak of. It continued to freshen on the 7th. It was not to say squally, but the wind and sea increased. He could not say positively, but he thought she kept her course by steam on the 7th. Up to that day she had not made any water that he was aware of. Early on the 8th the wind had increased to almost a gale; and about 8 a.m. the engineers received orders from the captain to stop the engines, lift the screw, and put the fires out. The weather continued the same till about 5 in the evening, when it moderated. Steam was then got up again. About midnight of the same day the wind began to increase, and continued increasing up to the time the ship went down. Indeed, he did not think there had been any lull at all during that interval. He thought one of the lifeboats was carried away on the morning of the 9th, but he did not see the occurrence. They were steaming all this time. He went on deck that day, and saw the foretopmast, the topgallantmast, and the royalmast hanging down. He did not go far enough forward to see the jibboom. He did not see the spars secured that day, but he believed they were secured the next day. At the time he went on deck the ship was steaming with her head to the wind. On the 10th he observed that the spars were secured. They were lashed round the stump of the foremast. While the ship's head was to the sea on the 9th she was not shipping much water. The engine-room was quite free of water. The engines worked well up to 3 a.m. on the morning of the 10th. At that time the captain ordered Mr. GREENHILL, the second engineer, to go at full speed. Witness did not hear the order given, because he was not in the engine-room at the time. It was then Mr. GREENHILL's watch. At half-past 4 a.m. witness went into the engine-room and commenced his watch, which continued till half-past 8. The engines were going at full speed during the whole of that watch. The second engineer relieved him at half-past 8, and he did not go on duty again till half-past four in the afternoon; the division of his time was four hours on and eight hours off. It was blowing a complete gale of wind when he went off watch at half-past 8. To his knowledge nothing material happened between half-past 8 and half-past 4. At the latter hour he found everything right in the engine-room, and the engines were going at full speed. No casualty occurred during his next watch - from half-past 4 till half-past 8 p.m., when he was again relieved by the second engineer, and went into his cabin, where he remained till the big sea came at half-past 10, and washed away the skylight of the engine-room. He came from his berth directly, and went down into the engine-room, where he found the second engineer standing by the engines. The engine-room was then flooding, and a body of water was coming down through the hatchway. He ran up on deck again and found that the whole of the skylight hatch was gone. Captain HARRIS asked whether it was unshipped or broken to pieces. Mr. JONES replied that he could not tell. He saw the aperture and found that the hatchway was gone. He returned to the engine-room at once. The water had come right down over the engine-room and flowed into the stoke-hole. When he went down the second time he found that the fires were entirely out. Mr. TRAILL inquired whether they were out when he went down the first time after leaving his cabin. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Day 5 of the inquiry to continue..... Petra

The Times, Thursday, Feb 01, 1866; pg. 7; Issue 25410; col A THE LOSS OF THE LONDON. ----------------------- OFFICIAL INQUIRY. [continued] Mr. John Thomas FOSTER, Second Emigration Officer of the port of London and Staff Commander in the Navy, stated that, with Captain LEAN, he inspected the London, in the East India Dock, while she was taking in her dead weight previously to her last voyage. Captain LEAN requested him to go on board and see how they were stowing the railway iron there, and there was a lot of it alongside the ship. He inquired from the officer of the London how much of this iron they intended to take on board, and the latter said about 350 tons. On that basis witness went into the main hold and satisfied himself that the iron was being stowed in a correct and proper way. There was at that time about 150 tons in the hold, and the "lumpers" were at work at the other end passing more iron in. He did not go into the hold afterwards; but, subsequently, he visited the ship a second time to inspect the provisions. On the occasion of his second inspection the hold was full. The ship got her clearance certificate, so far as the dead weight and provisions were concerned, on his report. The iron which he saw in the ship was stowed between the main hatchway and the fore hatchway. It was laid lengthways to answer as ballast. It was not raised. By Captain HARRIS. - He did not consider that in such a ship such a quantity of iron required to be raised. Had there been a much larger quantity he should have required it to be raised. Captain LEAN, in correction of his evidence given on the previous day, wished to say that the glass in the skylight of the hatchway was half an inch thick. From the report in The Times it appeared that he had said it was two inches thick. This was a verbal mistake on his part, and he wished to correct it. The correction requested by the gallant Captain was then made in the depositions. In reply to Mr. TRAILL, Captain LEAN said that previously to the departure of the London he mustered the crew at Gravesend, and those described in the articles as "able-bodied" seamen he passed as being entitled to that description. Mr. Edward HUMPHREYS, of the firm of HUMPHREYS and TENNANT, was then examined in reference to the engines of the ship. He said they had been made in his house, and from his designs. The instructions of the Messrs. WIGRAM were that the engines should be constructed in the best possible manner and of the best possible materials. They paid him the best price for the work. He had read the reports of the previous days' proceedings at this inquiry in The Times, and wished to explain some matters in connexion with the engine-room of the London. The witness exhibited a plan of the engine and the engine-room arrangements. He explained that when it was required to draw water from the bilge and discharge it overboard, it would only have been necessary to drive a centrifugal pump, with which the engine-room was supplied. That pump was provided with a non-return valve. The diameter of the revolving disc of the pump was 3ft., and it was driven by an independent auxiliary engine. For ordinary purposes of condensation, 70 or 80 revolutions a minute would be sufficient, but the revolutions could be increased to 200, or even 300, if necessary. Indeed, with the required pressure, there was scarcely a limit to the speed at which the machine might be driven. The auxiliary engine was from 16 to 20 horse power. No stress of weather was likely to affect the valves or discharge pipes. At about the ordinary speed - he did not in this case pledge himself to the exact number of revolutions - the engine would discharge upwards of 4,000 gallons a minute. Captain HARRIS. - That would be a larger amount of water than an engine on the old plan would throw out? Mr. HUMPHREYS. - You could not pass that quantity of water through one of the old engines without its breaking down. The centrifugal pump has nothing to overcome but the friction of the water passing through the pipes and the condensers. All we do is simply to facilitate the passage of the water. We are now supplying bilge suctions, on the principle I have explained, to two Government transports; we have supplied them to ships of the Peninsular and Oriental Company, and are making some for the Messageries Impériales. A previous witness, having been recalled, stated that when he last inspected the London there was nothing wrong with the non-return valve of the centrifugal pump. Had there been, he must have discovered it; and, therefore, he had no doubt that it was all right. Mr. FOSTER was also recalled, and in reply to Mr. O'DOWD said he thought the engine hatchways of a steamer should be capable of being protected, so as to become as strong as the deck, by some arrangement or other. By Captain HARRIS. - The hatchway would be similar to what it was at present, but stronger. He would increase the strength of the present skylights, so as to make them as strong as the deck; stronger than that there would be no use in making them. The bars of the skylights might be put so close as that they would withstand any pressure. Captain HARRIS. - Would you be in favour of a permanent structure to cover the engine-room? Mr. FOSTER. - If the ship were a two-decked one that would be convenient enough; but in other ships it would not be convenient. Captain HARRIS. - Among other inventions, some gentleman has proposed to fit revolving iron shutters over the engine-room. And I have received a letter from an eminent and practical man who says that, having considered the subject, his opinion is that ordinary tarpaulins are more effective than such coverings as have been suggested, and certainly a less impediment to ventilation. He further states that in his experience of many years there has been no instance of a skylight of any ship belonging to a particular company to which he refers being injured by sea. To make the hatchway strong, he would recommend a simple angle-iron grating with flat cross-bars, and, to cover all, a good tarpaulin, which could be rolled up in fine weather. He believes this would be less expensive than the ordinary glazed skylight, and not so liable to go out of order. Mr. FOSTER observed that he thought the plan suggested a very good one. If glass was not thought strong enough, planks might be put in. Captain HARRIS remarked that this question of further protection to the engine-room was one for consideration. A gentleman here addressed the Court, stating that he had come from London with the object of offering some suggestions as to the safety of ships generally. Mr. TRAILL told him to communicate with Mr. O'DOWD. Mr. O'DOWD requested the gentleman to communicate his views to him in writing. The Court having asked whether there were any other witnesses in attendance, Mr. O'DOWD said he required the attendance of a surveyor from Plymouth before he should be able to complete the first branch of the case - that relating to the ship herself; and as this gentleman had not yet arrived, he must ask the Court to adjourn. The inquiry was then adjourned till this morning. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ End of Day 3 of the inquiry. Petra

The Times, Thursday, Feb 01, 1866; pg. 7; Issue 25410; col A THE LOSS OF THE LONDON. ----------------------- OFFICIAL INQUIRY. The official inquiry directed by the Board of Trade into the circumstances under which the London foundered in the Bay of Biscay on the 11th ult. was resumed in the Greenwich Police-court yesterday, before Mr. TRAILL, police magistrate, and Captain H. HARRIS and Captain BAKER, nautical assessors. Mr. O'DOWD appeared for the Board of Trade; Mr. T. SALTER for the relatives of Mr. and Mrs. THOMAS, who, with their children, went down in the ship; and Mr. BURRELL, of Glasgow, who had lost a son in the London, on his own behalf, and that of Mrs. TENNENT, of Edinburgh, whose husband was drowned at the same time. It will be seen from the statements of the witnesses that additional testimony was borne as to the qualities of the ship; and an emigration officer gave evidence as to the manner in which her dead weight was stowed. Mr. HUMPHREYS described the arrangement of her engine-room, with the view of showing that she was furnished with a very superior kind of bilge pump. It will, however, be remembered that the fires of the London are said to have been put out, not by a flow of bilge water, but by a torrent of sea water which had swept over the upper deck, rushed down the hatchway, extinguished the furnaces, and made it impossible for the engineers and stokers to remain at their posts. If this be so, no bilge pump, however efficient for its purpose, could have prevented such an inundation; and the question raised by the occurrence is that of a better covering for engine-rooms as a protection against water from above. Mr. William BUNDOCK was examined, and in reply to Mr. O'DOWD said he was sailmaker and ship's husband to the Messrs. WIGRAM. He made the sails for the ship London, and now held in his hand the sail report book, which contained a list of the sails of that ship, signed by Captain MARTIN. The witness read the list, annexed to which were memoranda as to the condition of the sails on the 28th of November, signed by Captain MARTIN, the commander of the ship. The witness saw these sails before the London proceeded on her last voyage; five of them were new, and all were made of the best Irish flax canvas. Those of them which had required repair were repaired before the ship started on her last voyage. Captain HARRIS. - From that list she does not appear to have any storm sails? The Witness. - The storm sails were the foretop staysail and the mizen staysail. Captain HARRIS. - What canvas were they made of? The Witness. - They were of No. 1. Captain HARRIS. - Are you in the habit of fitting out the sailing ships of the Messrs. WIGRAM? The Witness. - Yes. Captain HARRIS. - And is it your practice to have storm sails for them? The Witness. - No; not other storm sails than those I have mentioned. Captain HARRIS. - Not for a vessel going on a voyage in the winter months? The Witness. - No. Captain HARRIS. - Did Captain MARTIN forward any requisition for additional sails, or make any request on the subject? The Witness. - No, none whatever. Captain MARTIN was on the survey of those sails. Captain HARRIS. - Had he done so, would they have been supplied? The Witness. - No doubt they would have been. Captain HARRIS remarked that no description of storm sail could have been of stronger canvas than the No. 1 canvas referred to by the witness. Captain Peter John REEVES, general surveyor of shipping, was the next witness. In answer to Mr. O'DOWD, he said he had been for 23 years acting as a surveyor. He surveyed ships on his own account, and also for the Emigration Commissioners. He surveyed the London on the 28th of November last. The witness handed in the memoranda of the survey, which stated that the London had been examined throughout; that she was a strong-built ship, and well fastened in every respect; that he and another surveyor who had conducted the survey with him found her in first-rate order, and scraped and painted; that some of her upper-deck water-ways had been caulked; and that her anchors, chains, davits, &c., were "the same as before." Mr. REEVES stated that some of the upper water-ways had required caulking, which was not an extraordinary occurrence in a new ship. The caulking was done, and though he made a report that the ship was in such first-rate condition, no special observations concerning her were called for. He had surveyed her on two previous occasions, and the words "same as before" referred to his previous surveys. Mr. Samuel T. CORNISH, a general ship surveyor, who, in conjunction with the last witness, had surveyed the London previous to her last voyage, stated that he had heard Mr. REEVES's evidence and concurred in it. He had signed the report put in by Mr. REEVES. Mr. Alexander GNUN [?GUNN], a clerk in the Record Department of the Registrar-General of Seamen, produced the official copy of the articles of agreement of the London. These articles were between the master and the crew. There were 15 foreign seamen on board. There were in all 34 able seamen - foreigners and British subjects included; all the foreigners were able seamen. The total number of the crew "all told" was 83. He believed that previous records would show the conduct and ability of the crew on previous voyages. The articles to which he referred were signed on the 23d of December last. Of the 15 foreigners it appeared from official records that 12 had previously served in British ships. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Day 3 of the inquiry to continue..... Petra

The Times, Wednesday, Jan 31, 1866; pg. 6; Issue 25409; col C THE LOSS OF THE LONDON. ----------------------- OFFICIAL INQUIRY. [continued] In answer to Mr. O'DOWD, the witness said that when he went aboard the London at Gravesend, on her last voyage, he thought she was in very good trim. It appeared to him that she had 8ft. of free board at either side amidships, which was the lowest part. He had heard Mr. BARKER's evidence, and that of Mr. WAWN, on the subject of engine hatchways. He thought it most desirable there should be every facility for battening down the hatchways of ships. With reference to the London, when he surveyed her he took it for granted that her engine hatchway was constructed in the usual way. The glass on the roof of the hatchway was, he thought, 2in. thick, and the hatchway itself was very strong. He had not had much experience of steamships. The London was the first steam passenger ship cleared by him from the port of London for Australia under the Passengers Acts. By Mr. TRAILL. - It had never occurred to him that additional precautions were required for securing the hatchways; but since the discussion on the point had been raised he had arrived at the conclusion that in future it would be improper to allow a steamship to go to sea without a provision for battening down the engine hatchway. Captain HARRIS. - But has not every ship the means for battening down the hatches? Has she not nails and tarpaulins? Captain LEAN believed they had. Mr. TRAILL. - But are you prepared to suggest any additional provision? Captain LEAN was not. The matter was one which required consideration. By Mr. O'DOWD. - When the London left Gravesend he understood she had 50 tons of coals in bags on the upper deck. The bags were carried in such a way that they required no extraordinary security. He saw no other stores on deck. By Mr. TRAILL. - He did not feel called upon to interfere because of the coals on deck, as it was probable that the 50 tons would be consumed in three days, and she was going to Plymouth. His survey was made on the 30th of December, and the ship left the same day. Mr. O'DOWD. - What sails had she? Captain LEAN. - I have a list of the sails here. Captain HARRIS. - As you saw them? Captain LEAN. - No, I did not see them. Captain HARRIS. - Then you don't know whether she had storm staysails or trysails. Captain LEAN. - I was furnished with a list of them. Captain HARRIS. - Would it have been your duty, looking to the safety of life on board ships surveyed by you, to see that the requisite sails were on board? Captain LEAN. - It has never been the practice. We only ascertain that she has two sets of sails. Captain HARRIS. - But how can that be done, except by your own inspection? Captain LEAN. - We are obliged to have a certain confidence in the owners. Mr. TRAILL. - Oh, no; no confidence. Captain LEAN. - We don't think it likely that the Messrs. WIGRAM or any other respectable house would deceive us on those points. Captain BAKER. - We have it in evidence that the London had two sets of sails, but you don't look upon it as a part of your duty to inspect the sails? Captain LEAN. - No; we do not. Captain HARRIS. - Then though a ship might nominally have two sets of sails, one of her sets might be so worthless and bad that her stock of sails might be quite insufficient to carry her to Melbourne. Mr. TRAILL. - There seems to be an omission as to an inspection of the sails. Mr. O'DOWD. - Though the Passengers Act mention medicines and various other matters in respect to which a personal inspection is to be made by the emigration officers, it would appear from these enactments that the Legislature never intended that the emigration officers should examine the sails. This duty is thrown more on the shipwrights of the Board of Trade. Captain HARRIS. - But between the stools the examination may fall to the ground. Mr. O'DOWD. - There are three stools; for the Merchant Shipping Act enables the Board of Trade, whenever they entertain any doubt as to a ship being properly supplied in this way, to appoint an inspector to examine her. The fact is, there is a want of uniform legislation and of a consolidation of the departments under which those provisions should be carried out. Mr. TRAILL. - Where did you get the list of sails, Captain LEAN? Captain LEAN. - I was furnished with it by the owners at my request. Mr. TRAILL. - When did you get it? Captain LEAN. - I think yesterday or Saturday. (A laugh.) Robert MAXWELL, a foreman engineer, who had superintended the fixing of the engines on board the London, gave evidence as to their efficiency. On the 23rd of December he was on board the ship in the East India Docks. By Captain HARRIS. - There were two discharge pipes on each side of the ship. The valve box was fitted with an expansion joint, which was water tight. The bilge injection acted with a centrifugal pump, and would have discharged the ship of water more rapidly than the ordinary bilge injection. He should say it would have thrown out 4,000 gallons a minute. There was nothing complicated about the machinery of the London which would have rendered the discharge of water more difficult than it would be in other ships. By Captain BAKER. - Supposing the ship were drawing 20½ feet of water, he thought the engines of the London would have propelled her 8 or 8½ knots an hour. By Mr. TRAILL. - You could not have drawn a shutter across the engine hatchway flush with the deck without interfering with the action of the piston rod. The inquiry was then adjourned till this morning. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ End of Day 2 of the inquiry. Day 3 to follow..... Petra

The Times, Wednesday, Jan 31, 1866; pg. 6; Issue 25409; col C THE LOSS OF THE LONDON. ----------------------- OFFICIAL INQUIRY. [continued] Mr. Samuel SMITH, shipwright foreman to Messrs. WIGRAM, was the next witness. In answer to Mr. O'DOWD, he stated that he had had a long experience in the building and repairing of iron ships. When the London was about being built he was instructed by the Messrs. WIGRAM not to admit any bad workmanship whatever in her construction, and any improvement which he suggested with the object of increasing the strength of the vessel was adopted by these gentlemen without regard to expense. Lloyd's inspector had made no objections to her, but complimented him on the construction of the vessel. Witness examined her previously to her last voyage, and found her in no weakness nor tendency to weakness. By Captain HARRIS. - The ship drew 15ft. 3in. when she was docked in December without cargo. Mr. Thomas HARDING, foreman in the firm of HUMPHRYS and TENNANT, stated, in reply to Mr. O'DOWD, that on the first voyage of the London he was in charge of her engines as chief engineer. He had never seen a pair of engines work better than those of the London did. The voyage on the occasion to which he referred was one to Australia and back, and he had only to stop the engines for 15 minutes for repairs and adjustment during the entire voyage out and home. Previously to her last voyage he inspected her engines, and found them in perfect condition. On the last voyage of the London he went with her as far as Plymouth. Mr. HUMPHRYS had sent him to see how the engines worked, and whether they could be improved. They could not have worked better than they did on that occasion. There were four bilge pumps, one capable of lifting 4,000 gallons a minute, and two others capable of lifting 250 gallons a minute between them, and another of lifting 100 gallons a minute, so that the four were capable in all of lifting 4,350 gallons per minute. Mr. TRAILL asked the witness whether there was anything doubtful about the engines that induced Mr. HUMPHRYS to send him in the London to Plymouth. The witness replied that there was not. It was customary for the firm to inspect engines they had manufactured, and he went as far as Plymouth because he had business at Pembroke. Mr. Isaac COLE, a ship rigger, was examined on the subject of the rigging of the London. He described the lower rigging and stays as of galvanized wire rope, and also the topmast and topgallant stays and rigging. The box stays and bowsprit shrouds were of chain, and the jibboom guys of galvanized wire rope, and the martingale stay and backropes were of the same material. The lower and topsail lifts were of hemp. The lower and topsailyards were of iron, and the gallant and royal yards were of wood. The running rigging was of the best hempen rope. In fact, all the rigging was of the best quality. Mr. Thomas NORTH, foreman mast-maker and boatbuilder to the Messrs. WIGRAM, stated that the masts of the London were made under his superintendence. The three lower masts and the bowsprit were of iron; the three lower yards and fore and maintopsail yards were of iron. All the rest of the spars were of wood. The lower mast was made in four plates with four internal angle irons, all of the best Low Moor iron; the lower yards in plates, with three internal angle-irons; the length of the foremast was 96ft. 8in., and its diameter 33in.; the length of the mainmast 100ft. 9in.; the length of the topmast was 58ft. The masts were of the best Low Moor plates. They were double rivetted, and the butt strips were treble rivetted. The London was not overmasted in proportion to her size. Three times the length of the ship is the usual calculation for the length of the mainmast. The assessors having referred to the dimensions of the London found that her breadth was 35ft. 9-10ths, which would have allowed of a mainmast 8ft. longer than hers was. The witness stated his opinion that iron masts and yards were lighter than those of pine wood. Captain LEAN, chief emigration officer for the port of London, acting under the Emigration Commissioners, was then examined. He stated that it is a part of his duty to see that certain requirements are complied with in all seagoing passenger ships. He is bound to look to the seaworthiness of the ship, and two surveyors acted under him. As regarded the Passengers Act, he was of opinion that the London was perfect in every way. The regulations of the Act of Parliament as regarded the number and size of her boats were complied with. Her tonnage was 1,460 tons, and with that tonnage she was bound to carry six boats. She had seven. The Act did not require that the boats should be of any particular capacity. "Suitable boats" were the words used. One long boat and a properly fitted lifeboat were specified in the Act. The London had two long boats and two lifeboats. She was fitted with davits to carry six boats; the seventh boat was carried on the forepart of the deckhouse. The boats of the London were very fine boats, both as to size and construction. She had one standard and either four or five steering compasses, an azimuth, five chronometers, and a fire-engine, with conducting hose, &c.; 36 rockets, 36 blue lights, one gun and 50 rounds of ammunition, signal lanterns, a fog horn, a bell, a booby hatch, and tarpaulins for each hatchway. Her crew was large and an excellent one. He felt no hesitation whatever in giving the certificate which enabled the master to get his clearance. He surveyed her himself at Gravesend, and the two surveyors acting under him had surveyed her in dry dock before the cargo was put in. Mr. TRAILL asked the witness whether he considered it necessary that there should be a sufficient number of boats on a ship to carry all the passengers. Captain LEAN said this was not required. A ship could scarcely carry boats to accommodate all her passengers if she had her complement. Of course, if she had not her complement, she might be able to accommodate all the passengers in her boats. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Day 2 of the inquiry to continue..... Petra