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