The Times, Friday, Feb 02, 1866; pg. 5; Issue 25411; col A 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, Police Magistrate, and Captain BAKER and Captain H. HARRIS, Nautical Assessors. Mr. BURRELL, solicitor, of Glasgow, who lost a son in the ship, attended on his own behalf and that of Mrs. TENNENT, of Edinburgh, whose husband was drowned at the same time. Mr. Talfourd SALTER, barrister, who on the previous days of the inquiry appeared for relatives of Mr. and Mrs. THOMAS, who with their children went down in the London, retired from further attendance under circumstances which will be found detailed in this report. Mr. Clifford WIGRAM, one of the owners, was again present. The evidence given yesterday was much more interesting than that which had been hitherto brought before the Court. It will put the public in possession of important particulars with regard to the amount and disposition of the cargo carried by the London. The history of the ship, as detailed by the witnesses, now carries us down to the time when she was fairly afloat on her last voyage, and the evidence of Mr. THOMPSON, the Trinity-house pilot, who had charge of her from the East India docks to Plymouth, contains a close and clear account of her performance from the Thames to the Sound, and of the weather she encountered up to the time when she finally left our shores. The narrative of this voyage will be taken up and continued to-morrow by Mr. GREENHILL, her chief engineer. At the sitting of the Court yesterday, Mr. T. SALTER, on behalf of the relatives of Mr. and Mrs. THOMAS, expressed his desire to say a word to correct a misapprehension which appeared to have arisen with regard to the part they took in this inquiry. It would have appeared, no doubt, by the public reports that they had put no questions to any of the witnesses who had been examined. He might now state publicly what had occurred between Mr. TRAILL and himself when he first attended there for the relatives of Mr. and Mrs. THOMAS. On that occasion Mr. TRAILL told him it was not customary in inquiries like the present to permit counsel to put questions directly, or to cross-examine witnesses; but that if counsel had any questions to ask he could state them to the Court, and it would put them to the witnesses. He had acted on this suggestion, but he now felt - and he was sure Mr. TRAILL's experience as a barrister would lead him to sympathize with him - that cross-examination, or anything on the nature of it, could not be effectually carried out in the way presented by the Court. He had some conversation on the subject with his clients, and their feeling was that if the magistrate was still of opinion counsel should not be permitted to cross-examine witnesses it would be better that they should not be further represented in the inquiry. He was quite aware that the course which the magistrate pursued was the usual one in these cases, though it might not be the course best calculated to elicit the truth. His duty was to abide by the decision of the Court, and to withdraw should it be adverse to the application he now made for permission to cross-examine witnesses. Mr. TRAILL said the course adopted in this case was the usual one, and he scarcely thought the Court could depart from it. There were a great many persons deeply interested in the inquiry, and, of course, they had a very strong feeling with regard to the evidence. If Mr. SALTER were allowed to cross-examine witnesses, each of those persons might ask to be permitted to appear by counsel and do the same thing. He did not think, therefore, the Court could go further than allow any question to be suggested to it in order that it might put the question to the witness. Mr. SALTER had anticipated that such would be the decision of the Court, but he had thought it advisable to set himself right with the public, in order that they might understand exactly how far counsel were permitted to take a part in the inquiry. He wished further to say that his clients had no pecuniary interest in the inquiry, but were simply actuated by an anxiety that the fullest light might be thrown on the circumstances under which relatives near and dear to them had lost their lives. Mr. TRAILL said the Court had a great many suggestions thrown out to it, and he and the Nautical Assessors had taken every opportunity of putting in the most ample manner any questions suggested to them by persons interested in the inquiry. But to allow counsel to cross-examine witnesses in an inquiry like this would lead to great inconvenience. Mr. SALTER could quite understand that; but, though he should be sorry to cause any embarrassment to the Court, he was so accustomed to cross-examine personally, that he did not feel he could cross-examine effectively in the manner prescribed by the Court. Mr. TRAILL remarked that in inquiries of this nature the Court did not adjudicate as it did in other cases. The Board of Trade wished to receive the best information they could on the loss of the ship; and he and the Assessors were only acting as a commission of inquiry. Mr. SALTER would, therefore, see the force of their not allowing any regular cross-examination of the witnesses. He, however, hoped the learned counsel would not retire. Mr. SALTER repeated that he felt it his duty to do so. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This article to be continued with the examination of an emigration officer at Plymouth..... Petra.