Today's puzzle is: Teddy Bear http://www.jigzone.com/z.php?134OGG002278566 Enjoy! Maggie ___________________________________________________________ All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

The Times, Tuesday, Jun 12, 1821; pg. 3; Issue 11270; col C In the afternoon of Wednesday last, while a number of workmen were employed in widening the bridge over the Eden, near Templesowerby, the centre or frame-work of one of the arches, upon which they were laying the stones, suddenly gave way; a momentary warning, however, had the effect of saving 11 out of 15 persons who were on the arch at the time; of the remaining four, two instinctively laid hold of the edge of the old fabric, and adhered so tenaciously, that, notwithstanding the general consternation, one of them was rescued from his perilous situation; the strength of the other being exhausted, he dropped into the abyss below, and was much bruised; the other two fell along with the wreck, one of them was miraculously saved from drowning, but the other was so much crushed that his life is despaired of. - Carlisle paper. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Petra

The Times, Tuesday, Dec 19, 1820; pg. 3; Issue 11121; col A CAUTION AGAINST GUNPOWDER. - A dreadful accident took place a few days ago in the cottage of Jonathan SIMPSON, a miner, at Haltcliff, near Hesket New-market. His youngest son having incautiously approached too near the fire, with a large quantity of gunpowder in his hand, a dreadful explosion instantly ensued, which completely unroofed the house, demolished the front, and burned most severely the whole family, consisting of five individuals; but hopes are entertained of their recovery. - Carlisle Journal. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Petra

The Times, Thursday, Feb 15, 1866; pg. 7; Issue 25422; col G THE LOSS OF THE LONDON. ----------------------- The official inquiry into the circumstances under which the London foundered in the Bay of Biscay on the 11th ult. was resumed and concluded, as far as taking evidence was concerned, yesterday, before Mr. TRAILL, the Police Magistrate, at Greenwich, and Captain HARRIS and Captain BAKER, as nautical assessors. Mr. O'DOWD, as usual, conducted the proceedings on behalf of the Board of Trade, by whose orders the inquiry was instituted. On the opening of the court a gentleman who stated himself to be Mr. John CLARE, jun., the inventor and patentee of Her Majesty's iron screw steam frigate Warrior, addressed the magistrate and said he had been "allured" by some letters in the newspapers to come forward and make a statement. Mr. TRAILL said he could not be allowed to make a statement, but if he had anything to suggest he might confer with the gentleman who represented the Board of Trade, and who might call him, if necessary, as a witness. Mr. O'DOWD, after briefly conferring with the gentleman, declined to examine him. Mr. CLARE then attempted to address the Court, but Mr. TRAILL said that, although he was quite ready to hear him if he had any useful suggestions to offer, yet he could not be permitted to make a mere statement. Benjamin SHEALS, an able seaman, on board the London at the time she went down, was further examined as to the course of the ship from the Tuesday to the Thursday when the catastrophe occurred, and said that while he was on deck, both on Tuesday and Wednesday, she was always up to the wind, and never before the wind. On Tueaday night or early on Wednesday morning she was brought round to the port tack, having been previously on the starboard tack. He repeated that on the Thursday morning he saw the skylight on the starboard side of the ship broken all to pieces. Mr. T. WILSON, a retired shipbroker, who was examined on Tuesday, gave additional evidence yesterday, and said that if the ship, as had been stated in evidence, was drawing 20ft. 3in. amidships when she left Gravesend, it was quite clear that she was too heavily laden. It was an important fact, too, that she had no stormsails on board. Such a ship ought to have carried stormsails independent of any other sails. In his opinion, the main cause of the foundering of the ship was her being overladen. The ship could not rise to the sea, and consequently the sea came over her. Looking at the section of the ship produced, he thought her load-line was too high up by 18 inches. She was too long and too deep for her beam. Six times the width was quite enough for the length of a vessel. He was aware that a different system had prevailed within the last ten years, so that the London was by no means an exception, but rather the rule, since that period. He was opposed to this new system of building ships, and was surprised that Messrs. WIGRAM should have so entirely adopted it. William DANIELS, the quartermaster of the London, was further examined as to the tack of the ship, and said that, having been put on the port tack, she about half-past 10 on Thursday morning was put on the starboard tack again, and remained on that tack till she went down. That was the only time she was put before the wind. The reason for putting her on that tack was to bring the boats to leeward. The wind at that time was N.N.E. on the port tack. Mr. R. GALLOWAY, engineer surveyor to the Board of Trade, said it did not appear to him that the engineers on board the London adopted the usual course when water came into the engine-room; they ought to have changed the suction valves of the centrifugal pump. Mr. TRAILL. - But the fires were out. Mr. GALLOWAY said he could not understand how the fires could be put out by one sea. Mr. TRAILL. - But there was a succession of seas. The witness then qualified his statement by saying that the suction valves ought to have been changed if it were practical to get at them. The water in the engine-room should have been run into the bilge, and the engineers ought to have been prepared for such an emergency. Mr. GALLOWAY then expressed a general concurrence in the views taken by Mr. BARBER, who was examined on a former day. The Rev. Rion G. BENSON, of Hope Bowdler Rectory, Shropshire, said he had a brother, 23 years of age, who had gone on board the ill-fated vessel, and was lost. Witness accompanied him to Plymouth to see him off. The ship was within the breakwater, and it struck him that she was very, very low in the water, especially for a ship that had been advertised for conveying passengers. Instead of having to walk up the ladder to get on board, they had to walk upon the ladder lying in a reverse direction, and almost at a level with the deck of the ship. She appeared to be very heavily laden, and after he had parted from his brother he wrote home to his father stating to him the fact of the ship being so very low in the water. Mr. O'DOWD having explained that he had not been able to bring forward Captain PRICE, of the Courier, said it was the wish of the friends of Captain MARTIN that some testimony should be given as to the character he bore and the qualifications he possessed as a commander of a ship. Captain Robert ROE, of Lynmouth, North Devon, then came forward and said that he was now a county magistrate, but had formerly been engaged in the merchant service, and from 1840 to 1846 he had served with Captain MARTIN in some of Messrs. WIGRAM's ships, Captain MARTIN being his junior, either as fourth, third, or second officer; and while they were together he was always very attentive to his duty, and also an exceedingly good sailor and officer. He was a skilful and careful man, and a very proper man to take charge of a ship. Mr. O'DOWD said that, in announcing to the Court that he had no further evidence to offer, he should say a very few words indeed. With respect to the ship's structure and seaworthiness, her engines and efficient working, her rigging, masts, &c., her cargo, and her having satisfied every requirement of the Passengers' Acts, he believed he had produced the best possible evidence, and such as he thought would be considered quite satisfactory. But he was bound to say, with respect to the evidence of the crew, it was by no means that which could have been expected and desired. That, however, was clearly no fault of his; he had had a very limited sphere from which to select his witnesses, and he had selected those who appeared to him to be most trustworthy. He had endeavoured to satisfy the Court, and had done everything in his power to satisfy the public while conducting this very important and protracted inquiry. Mr. TRAILL said this was a case concerning which he should at present abstain from saying a single word. It would require some time to consider the evidence, and before that was done the Court, of course, would make no report. Mr. BENSON (another brother of the unfortunate gentleman who was lost on the ship) hoped before the Court broke up he might be permitted to offer, on behalf of the friends of those who had been the sufferers in this great calamity (although both they and the shipowners had been, by Mr. TRAILL's decision, prevented from appearing by counsel - a point on which they still retained a very strong feeling), their thanks for the kindness and courtesy they had experienced during the investigation. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Petra

The Times, Wednesday, Feb 14, 1866; pg. 6; Issue 25421; col G THE LOSS OF THE LONDON. ----------------------- The inquiry into the circumstances causing the loss of the ship London was again resumed before Mr. TRAILL, the Police-magistrate, and Captain BAKER and Captain HARRIS, as nautical assessors. Mr. WAWN, the surveyor of Lloyd's, who was examined on the 30th ult., was again called, and gave some additional evidence as to the condition of the ship before she left the docks, and said that when he certified the vessel he was so satisfied with it generally that he made application to Mr. WIGRAM for the appointment of his son as third engineer to the ship, and Mr. WIGRAM would have given him the appointment but for a previous promise he had made to another person. The tarpauling and other things placed over the hatchway was, in his opinion, a sufficient protection under ordinary circumstances against the inclemency of the weather. It did not strike him that the combings were too low. He agreed with Mr. BASCOMBE that the dead lights should have been rabbited from the outside on an iron frame, which would have prevented their being carried away by an ordinary sea. He did not object to the height of the combings or of the spraketing of the ship. It was the usual mode of building large merchant ships. The only improvement he could suggest with regard to the hatchway was to make the combings higher, which would give additional strength to the ship, and he would make them of iron onstead of teak. The ship was not extra long in proportion to her width, being only seven times and a third her width in length. Mr. BARBER, surveyor for the Board of Trade, was also recalled, and said he had compared the dimensions of the ship London with the dimensions of several other steamships which he had surveyed at Liverpool and the Clyde, and he had found the comparison favourable to the London. She was not what he would describe as a sharp ship. He did not see anything objectionable in the proportion of the masts and the yards with the length and width of the vessel, and he thought she was of a very excellent construction. He objected to a box spraketing on the weather deck. It prevented the escape of deck water. He preferred a gutter water way. He had heard how the skylight was constructed, and if it had been properly secured by fastenings he was at a loss to account for its becoming unshipped. He did not think the engine compartment itself could have contained sufficient water to cause the ship to founder. It was difficult to fix a maximum load line; a ship might be too light as well as too deep. It was a subject which required careful consideration. The load line of a ship actually varied every day. Sir Daniel HOOPER said he had been Speaker of the Legislative Assembly at Sydney, Australia, and had gone three voyages to that colony. He was a passenger in the ship London in 1864, and on leaving Plymouth on that occasion he noticed her to lie very deep in the water. On reaching the Bay of Biscay he observed the ship to be very sluggish, and he considered her to be a very heavily-rigged ship. She was very slow before the wind, and did not steer well under sail, even with the screw down. She was not fit to carry a cargo to any extent, and she made bad weather. She was intended for short voyages, and ought not to have had a heavy cargo. No doubt the great difficulty with Captain MARTIN was the screw, which baffled him. Captain MARTIN, as a seaman, was a first-rate man; but as to the ship, whether he were right or wrong in his judgment, he never would have gone on board of her again. William Cowley MILLER, of Ashburton, said that he had formerly been in the Devonport dockyard, and was now a retired shipbuilder. He had seen the registry of the ship London, and he considered her to be a fair proportioned vessel. He thought her to be rather a full than a sharp ship. He had a decided objection to the system of spraketing. He had built a great many ships; allowed them to be constructed in that manner. With regard to the engine hatchway, he was of opinion that it had been left in an unprotected state, and not properly fastened down; and he also considered that the combings of the hatches both fore and aft were too low. He was of opinion that the spraketing round the London was one of the causes of her foundering; and his belief was that if the ship had had a greater water way to carry off the water there would have been no occasion for the present inquiry. Thomas WILSON, a retired shipbuilder of Liverpool, said that he differed from the system on which ships had been generally built within the last ten years. During that time there had been a great increase of the length and width in proportion to the beam of the ship; and he disapproved that increased length. He saw the ship London last May when she was in a dry dock at Blackwall. He went to see her in consequence of his son being about to go out to Australia and a friend having recommended him to take his berth in the ship. He went and saw her fore and aft, and she appeared to be an unusually strong iron vessel, quite equal to anything of her class that he had previously seen; but, nevertheless, he had an objection to the ship, which was that her length and depth were too great for her beam; and he came to the conclusion that if she should be heavily laden there would be very great danger in going to sea with her. She was also very much over-sparred. He left her, and would not allow his son to go on board. He should have done the same in the case of any ship similarly constructed. At the conclusion of this gentleman's examination the inquiry was again adjourned till to-day. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Petra

The Times, Tuesday, Feb 13, 1866; pg. 12; Issue 25420; col E THE LOSS OF THE LONDON. ----------------------- The inquiry was resumed in the Greenwich Police Court yesterday, before Mr. TRAILL, police magistrate, and Captain BAKER and Captain HARRIS as nautical assessors. James JOHNSON, Bilston-place, Poplar, examined, said he had for 15 years acted as a draughtsman to Messrs. WIGRAM. He made the drawings of the ship London and the necessary calculations of the weight and displacements. The weight of the hull, masts, rigging, anchors, chains, water-tanks, engines and boilers, without that of the cargo, was 2,020 tons; the water in the boilers was about 40 tons, the boats 10 tons, the sails 4 tons, the water in the tanks 78 tons, the provisions were 55 tons, stores 20 tons, passengers, officers, and every one else on board, including baggage, 24 tons, coals 473 tons, the cargo, dead weight, 341 tons (the measurement of goods being 950 tons, and, taking 100 tons of measurement at 35 tons weight, made about 341 tons), her total weight on going to sea being 3,410 tons. The mean draught of the ship when she left the East India Docks was 20ft. 3in. The combings of the fore hatch, main hatch, and the hatch at the back of the poop leading into the lower saloon were 12 inches above the deck. The lower saloon had no combings at all. The combing of the engine-room hatch was not in the plan, but he should say that the length of it was about 11 inches above the deck, without the framing of the skylight. He believed that the combings of steamers he had draughted had generally not been higher than he had described - that was, 11 inches; but he did not see any objection to their being higher. Thomas William CLOUGH, a solicitor at Huddersfield, who had a son on board, a midshipman, gave evidence about the loading of the ship, and a refusal the captain had made to receive additional goods. He could not exactly state what his reason was for declining to receive them. William Burr BASCOMBE was then examined. He said he resided at at 39, Ashburnham-grove, Greenwich. He was an Admiralty overseer, and superintended the building of vessels under contract for the Government. He had been directed by the Controller of the Navy to attend this inquiry. After hearing Mr. WAWN's evidence read, The witness said if he had been called upon by Lloyd's he should have certified the vessel. He thought the ship was well proportioned. He did so because she very nearly resembled the good ship Adventure, and had that ship's seagoing qualities. Having heard the evidence as to the materials of which the ship was constructed, he was of opinion that the "arrangement" was very good. He considered the construction of the ship to be very good. As to the combings, he thought for a merchant ship 12in. height was very good. There were various ways of fastening the hatches; the only advantage the Government system had over the present prevailing one was that there was an iron grating on the top of the combing. The beam of the London ran through the engine-room hatchway, which was agreat improvement in merchant ships, and the same as had been adopted in Her Majesty's service. He considered the skylight sufficient, but, as an Admiralty overseer, he should not have passed it without an iron grating or a deadlight fitted on the upper part of the combing. Had he seen the ship before she went to sea he did not think he should have anticipated any accident similar to that which had taken place. Mr. BASCOMBE then spoke of the mode of battening down the hatchway and skylight, and said that nailing down tarpaulin was not sufficient for keeping out a heavy sea. Planks ought to have been fastened across the opening, and if they had not been at hand he should have pulled up one of the decks; but there ought to be a grating to which the tarpaulin might be fastened. After some further evidence of an entirely technical description, the inquiry was adjourned till this day. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Petra

The Times, Monday, Feb 12, 1866; pg. 7; Issue 25419; col F The INQUIRY into the LOSS of the LONDON. ----------------------------- (From the Examiner.) Much has been said about the better protection of the engine-room, and all that can be done to secure the hatch consistently with the requirements of the deck is certainly most desirable; but the question the commission of inquiry has to consider is not whether the London was a perfect ship, faultless in every respect, fortified in every quarter, but whether she was of the average goodness and equipment of her class. And in one particular there may be a doubt as to the latter point. It appears that she was not furnished with storm sails, but that her ordinary staysails were to serve as storm sails. These sails were of canvas No. 1, the very strongest, as one of the nautical assessors observed; but size is to be considered as well as texture for the strength of the storm sails, and the size of a staysail for ordinary uses is too large for a storm sail in its extraordinary exigency. It seems to us that it would be as unfitting to use a small storm sail as a staysail in fine weather as to use a staysail for ordinary purposes as a storm sail in a fierce gale. If there is any sail in a ship that should be a speciality, it is the storm sail. A most important sail of the London was soon blown to shreds, her driver or spanker; and if she had been provided with a storm trysail it would have served well in the place of the sail split, but as it was the ship had not a single storm after sail to keep her head to wind, both driver and mizen staysail having been destroyed. We are surprised at the deficiency in ships generally so admirably found as those of Messrs. WIGRAM, but we suspect that reliance on the auxiliary screw has somewhat relaxed the care in equipment for sail. The evidence of MONROE taken the last day of the adjourned inquiry is important in many points. He was a sailmaker, but had served as a seaman. He corroborates the statement of DANIELL that the mizen staysail was not blown away but set when the ship foundered, together with a part of the maintopsail. Yet when they wore ship it would seem that the mizen staysail should have been taken in. But here is MONROE's account: - "Half of the maintopsail on the port side had been blown away, while the other half was left, and the whole of the mizen staysail remained set. "Captain HARRIS asked the witness to explain how this could possibly be. "The witness said that, strange as the fact might appear, it nevertheless was true that half the canvas held on to the ship and actually went down with her." The sail to which the man alluded must have been the maintopsail, and it is possible that the lee half of it may have stood after the weather leech and foot of it had been blown away below the tack. But the explanation on this point was not pressed. MONROE corroborates the other evidence that the hatch was carried away to starboard, and he attributes the accident to the jibboom, which was adrift and rolling about so as to be dangerous to persons attempting to pass along the deck, and also to the ship. Indeed, if this statement be true, the boom must have been acting against the combings of the hatch and the superstructure like a battering-ram. There is, however, other evidence that the boom was securely lashed, and as there can be no motive for falsehood the point to be ascertained must be whether it did not get loose after having been secured. MONROE charges the crew with skulking. He says he saw none but passengers at the pumps, and none of the seamen working. And as many as 21 out of 80 were on a list of sick or disabled. The last witness examined, MAIN, gave a very bad account of the state and behaviour of the ship, but he is not a seaman. He says the ship lay like a log on the water, but we know not how to reconcile that statement with her wearing, as described by SHEALS, shortly before she went down. And the only purpose of getting her on the other tack was to make a smooth see for the boats under her lee, which was done for the one that escaped. It may have been, however, that her head flew round so quickly from her having been much by the stern from the weight of water in her abaft. The impression made upon our minds after a careful consideration of the evidence, so far as it is carried, is that if the ship had been made snug at the commencement of the gale, or even when she began to make bad weather, and in that state hove to under sail, instead of driven against the sea by steam power, she would in all probability have got through the storm, as others did of inferior capabilities. If she had been made snug, her masts and spars forward would not have been carried away, and there would have been no broken jibboom on deck to be washed about by the seas shipped, so as to batter down the engine-room hatch. The origin of all the mischief was carrying on what ought to have been reduced. Possibly Captain MARTIN's crew, strange and raw, could not, or would not, do the necessary work; but, if so, it shows that ships should not quit port as if nothing but fine weather and occasion for all sail aloft and alow were to be expected. It would obviously be easier to get up topgallants and royals, if weather should be favourable, than to get them down in a hard gale and heavy sea. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ End of this article. Petra

The Times, Monday, Feb 12, 1866; pg. 7; Issue 25419; col F The INQUIRY into the LOSS of the LONDON. ----------------------------- (From the Examiner.) The official inquiry into the loss of the London has disproved several mis-statements as to her state when she sailed from Plymouth. She was not overladen, she was not out of trim, and the weather was not threatening when she put to sea with her royals on end and yards across. But it is startling to find that it is the custom of merchantmen, even in the depth of winter, to quit port with no preparation for bad weather, and with all their top hamper aloft. And the imprudence is the greater, as their crews are generally new and raw, and not likely to be quick and handy in sending down masts and spars and making the ship snug, if occasion should arise. In the case of the London, her top hamper never was reduced, her royals were kept standing long after she had made bad weather, and were carried away at last, together with her fore and main topgallants. And with this wreckage aloft commenced the ship's distresses. When the weather first became bad the ship was hove-to under fore and aft sails, and, strange to say, without having had her lofty masts and yards sent down. When the gale moderated she was driven against it under steam, burying her bows under green seas; and when the gale again freshened to a storm it does not appear that recourse was had to the manoeuvre of lying-to, which had before relieved her. It does not appear that she was ever put before the wind except for wearing, which she seems to have done without any of the difficulty and danger that might have been apprehended in the heavy cross sea that was running. This would show that the London was a handy ship for her length. And the seaman SHEALS, who gives an account of the way in which she was last worn, which is made utterly unintelligible by the misreporting of technical terms, adds the observation, "she flew right round before the wind; he never thought a ship could do anything like it." Notwithstanding the sea she must have turned on her heel, as it were, under her foresail, and without sustaining any damage in the perilous operation. After the sea broke into the engine-room and destroyed the steam-power, the ship was kept as much head to wind as might be under her staysails. But here there is a curious contradiction (one of many) in the evidence; HART, the carpenter's mate, stating that the mizen staysail was blown away in the morning of the fatal day, and DANIELL, quartermaster, that the mizen staysail was set when the ship went down. This man said that the ship was on a tack on which she could not possibly have been with the wind he described, and he had to shift the wind from S.S.W. to N.N.W. to reconcile wind and tack. All the other seafaring witnesses said they never noticed the direction of the wind from first to last. And this does not surprise us, for we have observed that seamen never notice anything which is not in their immediate duty. They seem to think it due to themselves not to use their eyes except where they are obliged to work their hands. Whatever is not compulsory they shun. They will go up and down the same track for years without noticing a single landmark or seamark because, forsooth, it is not their business. And so an Irish packet was lost upon a sand in the mouth of the Thames a few years ago, though almost every man on board except the master had been going up and down the river once a month or oftener, and without noticing the marks of the dangerous navigation. The evidence as to the engine-room hatch is another example of contradiction almost unaccountable. HART, the carpenter's mate, whose business it was to attend to any damage, states: - "It was lying flat on the deck, at the starboard side. The glass was all whole, or, if broken, much of it was not so. He and others tried to put the skylight on again. About 20 made the attempt; but the heavy seas sent it and them to leeward, and it was smashed to pieces." But Mr. EDWARDS, a young midshipman, said to be intelligent, states that on the Thursday, at 10 o'clock, he saw the skylight on the port side quite whole and without even broken glass. It is certain that the ship at the time was on the port tack, with a list to leeward, in which case the hatch must have been swept down to starboard, unless we can suppose that it went contrary both to the law of gravity and the action of the sea. It seems, therefore, that Mr. EDWARDS must have been mistaken, which is not surprising, considering that he had been only a few days in the service, and may not have had time to learn the difference between right and left in the nautical tongue; but more inexplicable is his evidence as to the uninjured state of the skylight after such pains had been taken in vain to provide a makeshift to keep out the sea. Can we suppose that Captain MARTIN could have neglected to secure the hatch, where it was so urgently wanted, if it was still serviceable? And all the other witnesses state positively that the hatch was smashed to pieces. It is, however, at least doubtful whether the ship could have been saved if there had not been the accident to the engine-room hatch. Such a body of water as caused that mischief could not have tumbled into her unless she had been labouring in a very bad position in a most dangerous sea. Other vessels, it is true, weathered the same storm, but we conceive that they were made snug in time, and the little Italian brig that saved the boat's crew was hove to during the worst of the gale. Too much stress must not be laid upon the boat's escape compared with the ship's loss, for a well-handled, open boat, with sufficient free board, will live in a sea distressing great ships. Indeed, there is hardly any weather in which the Deal, Dover, and Ramsgate boasts will not be going about their business of succour in all security. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This editorial to be continued..... Petra

I like this bloggo thing - it's a brilliant idea, isn't it ? Good to hear from you again Johno. I'm looking forward to seeing the fox pictures. Good luck in July - you certainly know how to enjoy yourself, don't you ??!!! Pat.xxx :o)) A Maid of Kent, UK. Your county needs YOU !!! http://FreeCEN.rootsweb.com Looking for ancestors in Kent ? Try: http://www.kent-opc.org.uk/ www.lawrence.eastkentgenealogy.co.uk Hello Everyone The new audioblog from Johno is at this link. It is dated 23 June. http://www.connolley.co.uk/Bloggo_de_Johno.htm The link for the fox videos mentioned is here: They are in black and white. They are the last two headings on the page called Alice and the Foxes and Feeding the Foxes. The one with the hedgehog is particularly funny. http://www.onefivenine.info/multimedia/video.html ==== GEN-TRIVIA-ENG Mailing List ==== RANDOM TAGLINE - GEN-TRIVIA-ENG - MAILING LIST Remember - Our "todays" ups & downs of life, are "tomorrows" Ancestral Trivia.

Hello Everyone The new audioblog from Johno is at this link. It is dated 23 June. http://www.connolley.co.uk/Bloggo_de_Johno.htm The link for the fox videos mentioned is here: They are in black and white. They are the last two headings on the page called Alice and the Foxes and Feeding the Foxes. The one with the hedgehog is particularly funny. http://www.onefivenine.info/multimedia/video.html

Today's puzzle is: Mascot in Cones http://www.jigzone.com/z.php?18BNGG0022785DD Enjoy! Maggie ___________________________________________________________ The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

Could someone tell me if I am bouncing or something,I;m not getting mail,last one was from Marlene...I sent a couple yesterday nowhere to be seen Thank you Wendy P.S.we are supposed to get high temp.in the 30.s that will just about finish me off

The Times, Thursday, Feb 08, 1866; pg. 7; Issue 25416; col E THE LOSS OF THE LONDON. ----------------------- OFFICIAL INQUIRY. [continued] Renewed efforts were made to batten down the hatchway, but the witness considered they did more harm than good, for by removing portions of the covering from time to time larger masses of water came pouring down into the engine-room. At this time witness heard Captain MARTIN call out to Mr. HARRIS to lower the boats, pointing, as witness believed, to the two iron boats. Mr. HARRIS, addressing Mr. GREENHILL, said, "The old man wants the boats down; what am I to do?" meaning, as witness supposed, that he (HARRIS) did not at that time wish to give up the attempt to cover over the hatchway. Witness again went down into the saloon, and he found that at that time the general impression among the passengers was that all hope was gone. Having heard two of the sailors talk about getting one of the starboard iron boats lowered, he said to one of them that he would lend him a hand, to which the sailor replied "All right." The witness then described the manner in which the boat was lowered, but was finally lost, and also the way in which he succeeded in getting on board the ship again. About 1 o'clock on that Thursday he saw some sailors sitting in the cutter, which was still hanging by the tackles to the ship; but they all came on board again. KING and SHEALS then went to the captain and told him that they would square the mainyards, and run her before the wind. Mr. HARRIS then called out, "Loose the foresail." He did not know how many hands went foreward, but the ship paid round by the lee, and he then heard them say, "Lower away; this is the time." All the men said it. But previously KING was heard by witness to say to the captain, - "Captain MARTIN, will you come with us?" Witness did not hear the captain's answer, but saw him make a gesture which witness understood to mean that he would remain with the ship. KING then asked the captain what course it was to the nearest land, and a course was given by the captain; but witness did not hear what it was. He was not in the boat at the time the cry was given to lower away; indeed, he was in doubt whether he would go in or not, the other boats having been lost; but, seeing two of his friends already in the boat, he jumped in too and joined them, and he did not think they were two seconds alongside the ship after that. He considered the ship to be deep in the water, and to be less lively and buoyant than other ships. It made worse weather of it when it got into bad weather than any ship he had ever been in. David Gavin MAIN, also a passenger in the London, said that when he went on board at Gravesend he did not think the ship was such as a passenger ship for so long a voyage ought to be. The hatches were not what they should have been - they admitted water freely, and he observed before reaching Plymouth that the water flowed up on deck from the water-closets. On Wednesday morning he asked Mr. HARRIS why he did not cut away the jibboom which had become a wreck, when he said he was afraid if he were to do so it would damage the screw. The hatchways were not such as any passenger ship should have. The water came in between the combings and the cover, and he considered the combings to be much too low. The witness said that on Wednesday night he was thoroughly exhausted, and had a sound sleep. Mr. MUNRO came and roused him up, saying that the ship was sinking. Witness replied that that was alright, but he did not expect the ship would go down for two or three days. He was at that time quite prepared to die. Nobody on board then had any hope. The ship was like a log on the water. The witness, after giving a similar account of the way in which the boat was lowered to that given by other witnesses, said that before getting into the boat he felt the ship gradually sinking under him, and he then thought there might be a slight chance of escaping in the boat and he immediately jumped into it. The ship was then settling fast, and he believed that at that very time they were all dead on board. Mr. O'DOWD then observed that the Court had been engaged in that inquiry for nine days, and no less than 30 witnesses had been examined. It might appear unreasonable to ask the Court for a further adjournment; but, notwithstanding every effort to complete the evidence that day, he found there were some material points of the inquiry respecting which it was necessary to adduce some supplementary testimony. One of the witnesses he proposed to call was in a remote part of the kingdom, and under these circumstances he asked the Court to adjourn the proceedings till Monday next. The public were looking very anxiously at everything that occurred in that court, and he hoped very quickly to get through the inquiry in such a manner as to satisfy the public mind. Mr. TRAILL said the object of the Court was to get every possible information that would tend to throw light upon this deplorable case. A letter had appeared in The Times signed by the captain of a vessel which was supposed to have come under the stern of the London. It would be desirable to get the writer of that letter before the Court if possible. Mr. O'DOWD said it appeared that the name of the ship was the Courier, and that the captain's name was PRICE, the ship belonging to New South Wales. If the captain should be in this country at the next meeting, he would call him before the Court. The inquiry was then adjourned till Monday next. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ End of day 9 of the inquiry. Petra

The Times, Thursday, Feb 08, 1866; pg. 7; Issue 25416; col E THE LOSS OF THE LONDON. ----------------------- OFFICIAL INQUIRY. The inquiry directed by the Board of Trade into the circumstances under which the ship London foundered in the Bay of Biscay on the 11th ult. was resumed at the Greenwich Police Court yesterday, before Mr. TRAILL, police magistrate, and Captain HARRIS and Captain BAKER, nautical assessors. Mr. O'DOWD appeared for the Board of Trade; and Mr. W. M. HITCHCOCK on behalf of Mr. CUTTING, whose daughter was lost in the ship; Mr. Clifford WIGRAM, one of the owners of the ship, was also present. John MUNRO was the first witness examined. He said he was at present staying at St. George's Hotel, Aldermanbury. He had served his apprenticeship as a sailmaker, and had since been five years and a half at sea as a sailmaker, in the India and China trade. He left following the sea in June, 1852, and might therefore have forgotten some of the nautical phrases, but he was well acquainted with seafaring affairs. He had made three voyages to Melbourne, Victoria, and the one he was about to go in the London would have been the fourth. The ship left Plymouth at five minutes past 12 o'clock on Saturday morning. The weather was then beautifully fine, but in the afternoon of that day the wind began to freshen. The ship was then on the starboard tack. Sunday was what they called a "dirty" day; it was rainy, and the wind still kept freshening. Between 6 and 8 on the morning of Monday the vessel began to ship water pretty freely, and continued doing so all Monday night. The main hatchway did not fit tight, and the water came down with great force. The ladies in the second cabin were becoming frightened, and he sat up all that night for the purpose of talking to them. Early on Tueaday morning he heard a cry raised that the jibboom was carried away. He then went on deck and saw that the foreroyalmast was swinging to and fro; and soon after the topgallantmast went, and then the foretopsail. These wrecks were swinging about and some of the men went aloft to secure them as well as they could. The jibboom was not touched that day, nor was the deck at any time made entirely clear of water, there being more or less on it all the day. A great quantity of coal was at this time tumbling about the deck; some in bags and some in large lumps lying loose; these were the more dangerous. It was blowing very hard, and the vessel was shipping very heavy seas. He believed that the yards were hauled round to the port tack on that day or in the night, but the first time he saw the ship on the port tack was on the Wednesday morning. On Tuesday night the spanker was blown away. The weather on Wednesday was better than that on Tuesday up to about 12 at noon. On coming on deck on Wednesday he observed the officers and crew at work clearing away the wreck of the jibboom and endeavouring to get it into the ship. They were employed up to dark in doing this. The jibboom was lashed to the fore-rigging; it was lying over the bulwarks. The flying jibboom was got on board, and was lashed along towards the cuddy door, lying fore and aft the deck. The ship was rolling all the time, and therefore the jibboom must have been lashed to something, though he did not observe in what way. About 9 o'clock at night he tried to go along the deck to his own hatchway on the port side, when he saw the flying jibboom rolling about, striking against the bulwarks and then against the combings of the engine-room hatch. The jibboom was at that time totally adrift, and he was afraid to pass, and therefore made his way back again. He did not call the attention of the officers to this circumstance because at that time everyone was engaged; and another reason was that when on a former occasion he had spoken to some of them about something he was snubbed by them. He certainly considered the position of the jibboom to be dangerous to persons passing, and it was very likely to do damage to the ship. About 11 o'clock witness went down into the saloon, and he then heard a great body of water come down the engine hatch, and he immediately saw the engineers and stokers rushing up out of the engine-room, and he then heard that the engine-room hatch was gone. Captain MARTIN and Mr. GREENHILL were at that time on deck consulting together, and witness heard orders given to get sails out of the locker. Witness assisted in getting the sails on to the hatch-way, where spars, mattresses, beds, blankets, and other things were being pressed down to stop the water from going down. He at that time saw the skylight on the starboard side of the deck; but he had not time to see whether it was broken or not. They were, in fact, at work at that time up to their middle in water. He did not notice any attempt being made to replace the skylight; but that might have been done before he came to the hatch, as 20 minutes had elapsed since the accident had occurred. Every effort was made to choke up the hatchway, but it was all in vain. The heads of the nails by which they endeavoured to batten down the hatchway were so small that they would not hold the canvas. On the witness being asked whether he had seen Mr. GREENHILL at any time cover the skylight, he said that he believed he did on the Wednesday, before it was dark, see him putting something over the skylight, as if he was preparing for bad weather. When he attempted to get to his cabin at 9 o'clock on the Wednesday he saw the skylight, but he could not say whether there was any tarpauling over it or not. Before the skylight was broken away he saw the stewards baling out water round the after part of the lower saloon aft the engine hatch. Witness assisted for some time at the pumps till he became quite fatigued. He at the time observed that none of the sailors were working, and he made the remark that it was very strange that none but passengers were at the pumps. He went below, and asked whether any men would turn out and take their spell at the pumps. He then found the boatswain employed, assisted by Mr. ROWE, a passenger, taking down the names of the sailors who were disabled from working either by having been hurt, or being sick, and no less than 21 of the crew had their names put down as being either sick or hurt. Two young men did, however, come out and a lend a hand at the pumps, but with these exceptions none but passengers were working at them. About daybreak on Thursday the donkey engine was set to work, and from that time the men were relieved from the pumps. The weather was at that time frightful, the sea making a clean breach over the deck. The wind was very strong, but not so strong as it had been on the previous night. Half of the maintopsail on the port side had been blown away, while the other half was left, and the whole of the mizen staysail remained set. Captain HARRIS asked the witness to explain how this could possibly be. The witness said that, strange as the fact might appear, it, nevertheless, was true that half the canvas held on to the ship and actually went down with her. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John MUNRO's examination to continue..... Petra

The Times, Wednesday, Feb 07, 1866; pg. 12; Issue 25415; col G THE LOSS OF THE LONDON. ----------------------- OFFICIAL INQUIRY. [continued] James Edward WILSON, a passenger on board the ship London, was then examined. He said he was at present residing at No. 4, George-street, Tower-hill, and that he was connected with the gold diggings in Australia. The witness referred to a diary which he had prepared from the day the ship left Plymouth until the catastrophe occurred. He described the wind as increasing from the Sunday, but nothing particular occurred until about 6 o'clock on Monday evening, when the ship gave a considerable lurch, which upset everything. The water then for the first time came in through the skylights, and soon after a heavy sea came down the hatchway. About 10 a.m. of Tuesday the ship pitched considerably; the jibboom was swept away, and the foremast was broken down. The witness described other damage done to the ship; although the day was fine and clear, the sea was strong. The lids of the hatch were closed, but not being tight-fitting they did not prevent the water from coming in. The ladies in the second class showed much terror, the ship continuing to roll very much. During the lull of the sea the hatch was opened to give fresh air to the passengers. He said that the coals which had been put on deck had tumbled out of the sacks and were tumbling about the ship. On Wednesday he noticed a different motion of the ship, when he heard that she was being put about with the intention of going back to England. She was not running ahead on the sea; the motion was that of a ship being close hauled. The weather became worse. On Wednesday the water poured down the hatch incessantly. Everybody was terrified. About 10 o'clock the water on the starboard side of the state room was up to the knees. At 11 o'clock on Wednesday night some sailors came near his state room, and he heard one of them say, "Let us make haste and get a sail, or she will sink." Immediately after an order was given that all men were wanted aft on the poop. That he understood to apply to the passengers, and he went to the poop. The wind was then at its height. He went below into the cuddy. There was a minister praying at the time. All the first-class passengers were in the saloon. As soon as the prayers were over some of the passengers went to assist, and he then learnt that the fires were out in the engine-room. He assisted in getting up the sails. While he was holding a light to the men he saw Captain MARTIN and Mr. GREENHILL in conversation. The doctor and Mr. HARRIS were also present. On Thursday he was assisting in lading out water, when Captain MARTIN came and said, "Men, put down those buckets, and come and try and secure the engine-room hatch, for that is the only chance to save the ship. Secure that, and we may keep her up." We all left the buckets, and were going to the saloon, when orders were again given for the sails. Witness went up with a sail, and assisted in nailing it down over the hatch, where a large heap of other sails had been already nailed down. Soon after Mr. GRANT, one of the officers, asked witness to go to the pumps, and he worked at them till the morning. At about 9 or 10 o'clock they were all relieved by the donkey-engine. He met Captain MARTIN, and asked him whether ir was any use to continue baling out water, when he said "You may, but I think it is of no use." Witness then went to his cabin, and on coming back again he saw that a change had taken place, and that a great mass of water had come down. Nothing was done after that time. He then made up his mind that the ship would not last long, and immediately went to the poop and did not go down again. He saw the sailors preparing the boat, and he stood by waiting his chance of escaping in it, and when it was lowered he got into it, and soon after the ship went down. The inquiry was then adjourned till this day. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ End of day 8 of the inquiry. Petra

The Times, Wednesday, Feb 07, 1866; pg. 12; Issue 25415; col G 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 at the Greenwich Police Court yesterday, before Mr. TRAILL, police magistrate, and Captain HARRIS and Captain BAKER, nautical assessors. Mr. O'DOWD appeared for the Board of Trade; and Mr. W. M. HITCHCOCK on behalf of Mr. CUTTING, whose daughter was lost in the ship; Mr. Clifford WIGRAM, one of the owners of the London, was also present. The first witness called yesterday was Richard LEWIN, an able seaman on board the London, but after answering a few questions he became so confused that his further examination was postponed. Benjamin SHEALS was then called and examined. He said he was an able seaman on board the London on her last voyage. He had been a sailor 18 years. On the ship leaving Plymouth the weather was fine and calm. On Sunday morning they had a light wind; they were on the starboard tack, and had been so ever since leaving Plymouth. He had taken his turns on the watch, and was on deck from 12 to 4 on Monday morning, when he went below. At 8 o'clock the same morning he came on deck again. It was then blowing hard, but in what direction he could not say. He remained on deck till 12. The wind was increasing. He went below at 12, and came on deck again at 4. The ship was still on the starboard tack, and was then labouring very hard. At 8 o'clock on Tuesday the ship was pitching. The flying jib had been washed away, and he and others went out and restored it. He then went below, and at 12 came on deck again, when the jibboom was pitched away and the head of the foretopmast and the mainroyalmast were gone. During the time he was on deck on Tuesday the lifeboat was washed away. The ship was at that time labouring hard, and the coals on deck were drifting about. No water had then been made. He was on watch from 6 to 8 on the evening of Tuesday, and then a green sea came over the bow of the ship, and the water ran down the main hatch. The wind was at this time a very hard gale, and a cross sea. He went below at 10, came up at 12, and remained till 4 on Wednesday morning. The captain was then on the quarterdeck. During his middle watch the ship was steamed round on the port tack. He was employed at the time in baling water out of one of the saloons. The ship appeared to him to lie easier on the port tack than on the starboard tack; she did not ship so much water over to leeward. He was on deck again at 8, when the wind was blowing almost a hurricane. The watch were then called to get the jibboom in. They got it up and fastened it to the forerigging on the port side; but at 12, when he went below, the flying jibboom was hanging overboard on the port side. The boom had been broken. He came on deck again at 4 p.m., when a heavy sea came and swept everything before it. This happened just as witness was lashing one of the broken parts of the jibboom to the side of the vessel. The water knocked him against a cask, which injured his leg, and he was obliged to be taken below. The two midship ports were knocked away altogether. About half-past 11 that night he crept on deck on his hands and knees, when another dangerous sea swept over the ship, and he was then taken down into the forecastle, where he remained till 8 o'clock in the morning of Thursday. Reports then came that the ship was sinking fast, when he again crawled out and got on deck. He could at once see that she was going and settling hard. He helped to lash some of the gear that was floating about the deck to the forecastle. The ship was taking the water clean across over all; she was clearing herself as well as she could through her ports. At that time they had no command of the ship; her helm was half down. She was laid to the best advantage. Orders were given by Captain MARTIN to get out the boats that were remaining, the starboard lifeboat and the port lifeboat and the cutter having all gone. About 9 or half-past 9 o'clock in the morning they got the starboard iron boat out, when Mr. HARRIS told the men to get into her. Witness was the last man out of six who did so. While the boat was being lowered the bow fall went too quickly, and the boat went down under the ship. Ropes were hanging from the ship, and the men got on board again. They then took the port boat and prepared it. It was impossible to get the iron boat out; the ship continuing to heave so much the boat could not be got clear of her side. Witness then went into the aft saloon, where there were several ladies, and assisted Mr. G. V. BROOKE in baling out the water. He and three or four others went to the port cutter and got bread and two bottles of brandy in her, when Captain MARTIN said, "Hold a bit, men, don't leave yet." About that time the ship took a heavy sea forward. They immediately flew to the wheel and heaved her up, cut the braces, and then let her go. This was done in pursuance of orders given by Mr. HARRIS. The ship immediately rode round to the other tack, the foresail being then standing. She flew right round before the wind; he never thought a ship could do anything like it. The ship had never been before the wind till that time since she left Plymouth. As soon as the ship had gone about on her starboard tack Captain MARTIN said, "Go into the boat, some of you." They did so, witness being one of them. Eleven lowered themselves down. One man asked Captain MARTIN if he would come into the boat. The captain, who was standing close by the mizen rigging, said, "No, my men, I will not come into the boat; I will go with the ship, and passengers, and crew." KING then asked the captain the course and distance to the nearest point of land. The captain told him E.N.E. for Brest. Witness then heard the captain shout, "Good bye! God speed you!" Eight more jumped into the boat, making 19 altogether. The boat was then pushed off, and the ship was sinking fast. The witness then corroborated the evidence which had been already given as to the skylight of the engine-room being completely smashed. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This article to continue with the examination of a passenger..... Petra

I will too Mary Jean Oz > I will think positive thoughts for you both and hope that Jac finds > something real soon. > > DiDi > http://photobucket.com/albums/d100/didi_45

Oh no..................wish I had a crystal ball and could give you positive remedy. I will think positive thoughts for you both and hope that Jac finds something real soon. DiDi http://photobucket.com/albums/d100/didi_45 I need a glimpse of the future...... just when I thought things were settling down, and that the light was starting to show at the end of the tunnel - though still very distant - Jac came home last night feeling rather down. At quitting time she & the other 2 people taken on in April were all laid off - indefinitely. I guess the contract which was to bring in the extra work has fallen through and so the last hired were all laid off with very little likelihood of being recalled in the near future. So we're back to square one again..... and I'm not sure what will happen next. Please peek at your crystal ball, if you have one, and tell me what to do as I am out of ideas... mary ==== GEN-TRIVIA-ENG Mailing List ==== RANDOM TAGLINE - GEN-TRIVIA-ENG - MAILING LIST Remember - this list is only as good as you, the Lister, make it. If you don't post, then it's no fun at all. :-)

Oh, how TROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!!! :o) Pat.xxx :o)) sighing: if ooooooooooooooonlyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy . . . . A Maid of Kent When were on holiday in Wales we bought a teatowel with a message printed on it and thought you would enjoy it - particularly in the light of some of the conversations about our meals and calories whilst at the reunion. Liz DIETING UNDER STRESS 10 RULES ON HOW TO COMBINE A SUCCESSFUL DIET WITH LIFE AS A NORMAL HUMAN BEING 1. If you eat something and no one sees you then the food has no calories. 2. When you eat with someone else, the calories do not count if they eat more than you do. 3. If you drink a diet cola with a choclate bar, the diet cola cancels the calories in the chocolate. 4. Broken biscuits contain no calories - the process of breaking causes leakage. 5. Food for medicinal piurposes never counts, e.g. hot chocolate for relaxation; brandy for fortification; toast and cheesecake as antidepressants. 6. It is recommended that you fatten up everyone around you so that you appear slimmer. 7. Food licked off cutlery or out of a bowl has no calories if you are following a recipe e.g. butter icing on a cake; the remains of the scone mixture; cream for the top of a trifle. 8. TV and cinema food contain no calories as they are part of the whole entertainment package. 9. Foods of the same colour have the same number of calories e.g. spinach and mint ice cream, mushrooms and white chocolate, water and a large gin and tonic. 10. Athletes eat huge amounts of pasta before races like the marathon. It's a myth that you have to run 26 miles to work it off. One brisk trot around the settee is quite sufficient to wipe out one bowl of spaghetti. Twice round the living room will use up so much energy that a chocolate bar is required to supplement your sugar level and rebuild your strength. Good Luck! ==== GEN-TRIVIA-ENG Mailing List ==== RANDOM TAGLINE - GEN-TRIVIA-ENG - MAILING LIST Before you sent your mail - Please cut out as much of previous messages as is appropriate - and Please change the Subject Line if the Topic has changed.

When were on holiday in Wales we bought a teatowel with a message printed on it and thought you would enjoy it - particularly in the light of some of the conversations about our meals and calories whilst at the reunion. Liz DIETING UNDER STRESS 10 RULES ON HOW TO COMBINE A SUCCESSFUL DIET WITH LIFE AS A NORMAL HUMAN BEING 1. If you eat something and no one sees you then the food has no calories. 2. When you eat with someone else, the calories do not count if they eat more than you do. 3. If you drink a diet cola with a choclate bar, the diet cola cancels the calories in the chocolate. 4. Broken biscuits contain no calories - the process of breaking causes leakage. 5. Food for medicinal piurposes never counts, e.g. hot chocolate for relaxation; brandy for fortification; toast and cheesecake as antidepressants. 6. It is recommended that you fatten up everyone around you so that you appear slimmer. 7. Food licked off cutlery or out of a bowl has no calories if you are following a recipe e.g. butter icing on a cake; the remains of the scone mixture; cream for the top of a trifle. 8. TV and cinema food contain no calories as they are part of the whole entertainment package. 9. Foods of the same colour have the same number of calories e.g. spinach and mint ice cream, mushrooms and white chocolate, water and a large gin and tonic. 10. Athletes eat huge amounts of pasta before races like the marathon. It's a myth that you have to run 26 miles to work it off. One brisk trot around the settee is quite sufficient to wipe out one bowl of spaghetti. Twice round the living room will use up so much energy that a chocolate bar is required to supplement your sugar level and rebuild your strength. Good Luck!