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