The Times, Monday, Feb 05, 1866; pg. 11; Issue 25413; col B 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 on Saturday, before Mr. TRAILL, Police Magistrate, and Captain H. HARRIS and Captain BAKER, nautical assessors. 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, appeared on his own behalf and that of Mrs. TENNENT, of Edinburgh, who lost her husband. The evidence given on Saturday is more remarkable than any which preceded it. Two witnesses were examined. One of them starts a theory, perfectly novel as far as the knowledge of the public is concerned, to account for the loss of the ship. If what the other states be correct, Captain MARTIN never did what up to this we all had been told he did, and nine-tenths of the nautical criticism which has been indulged in on his seamanship are founded on the presumption of what never took place. The first accounts of the foundering of the London represented that the engine-room hatchway had been swept off and carried away by the direct action of the sea; and all the witnesses examined up to Friday evening appeared to accept that as a correct version of the disaster which led to the subsequent loss of the vessel. But the carpenter's mate, who was examined on Saturday, entertains quite another opinion. From his evidence it appears that the flying jibboom, having been carried overboard, was subsequently recovered and lashed to the deck, close to the combings of the hatchway, and underneath the ledge of the skylight. His idea evidently is that the jibboom was thrown by the sea up against the ledge, which it prized off; the inference from which is that if the jibboom had not been placed in that unusual position the hatchway would have been safe enough. To enable the general reader to understand correctly the effect of this witness's evidence it may be as well to describe briefly the construction of the hatchway and skylight. The portion of the permanent hatchway structure which is carried from below up to the upper deck is called the "combings." These combings, which rise to a height of 16 inches, are made of very strong timber. On the top of the combings the skylight is placed, and rises to some feet in the shape of a roof or canopy. On the hatchway of the London, the ledge of this roof projected an inch and a half beyond the combings. According to the evidence of the carpenter's mate, the flying jibboom was lashed to ringbolts by the side of the combings and underneath the ledge of the skylight. The flying jibboom was a heavy spar from 9in. to 12in. in diameter, and when lashed to the deck one end of it extended to some distance aft of the hatchway. Now, if it forced off the skylight, it must have done so in either of two ways. A heavy sea might have struck and raised only that portion of it which lay along by the combings, in which case a fulcrum would have been established on the deck at that end of the jibboom which lay aft of the hatchway, and a powerful lever would have been brought to bear under the ledge of the skylight; or a heavy sea might have lifted the whole of the jibboom, which, by one or a succession of blows, sent the skylight flying about the deck. The carpenter's mate swears positively that the skylight had been battened down with a sail doubled, and a tarpaulin, and that when found after it had been carried off the sail and tarpaulin had been torn off the skylight, the batten nails not having been drawn out. It is worthy of observation, however, that this witness did not see the skylight carried away, nor did any of the other witnesses who have been examined. It is in evidence that two men were carried down the hatchway the moment the skylight disappeared. If either of them is living, or any other person who was near the hatchway at the time of the occurrence, it would be very desirable to have him produced. Then, as to the second feature in Saturday's evidence. It had been stated, and generally taken for granted, that, after having gone with the ship's head against the wind, Captain MARTIN changed her course, and ran her before the wind; and several nautical men have expressed their opinion that such a proceeding was an error of judgment on the part of the gallant commander. But one of the quartermasters of the London states distinctly that the captain never did anything of the kind. In reply to close questions on the point by Captain BAKER, he asserts over and over again that from the time the ship left Plymouth she never was before the wind except for a few minutes when they were wearing her round, adding what seems to prove conclusively that such a course would not have been a judicious one - "During those few minutes she rolled more and laboured heavily, the seas coming right over the poop." More evidence on this point also will be looked for with anxiety, because, though showing no indisposition to speak the truth and tell all he knew, the quartermaster was by no means a satisfactory witness. He was unable to tell the day on which some very important movements affecting the ship's fate took place, though he himself had taken a principal share in them; and he described the wind at a particular point when the ship was on a particular tack, which, according to the nautical assessors, would have been impossible consistently with that tack. It is believed that Captains HARRIS and BAKER are very desirous to have both these important matters fully cleared up, and therefore the proceedings at the inquiry today will be looked to with even more than the interest which has been displayed both inside the court and by the public generally since the investigation commenced. At the sitting of the Court on Saturday, Mr. O'DOWD said that before the Court proceeded further with the examination of witnesses he thought it necessary to state he had received a great number of communications since the commencement of the inquiry from, he had no doubt, benevolent and intelligent writers, submitting a variety of means for promoting the safety of passengers on foreign voyages. Some of the suggestions contained in those letters might be very valuable, but it appeared to him that they were not pertinent to the present inquiry. No doubt, before a Select Committee of the House of Commons those suggestions would have that consideration to which they would be entitled; but that Court had met for a different object. As it was wholly out of his power to make replies to the very numerous letters he had received on the subject, he trusted the writers would receive that statement as an acknowledgment of his having received their letters and be satisfied that no disrespect or discourtesy was meant towards those who had been so kind as to address him. Mr. TRAILL. - The inquiry here is as to whether the construction of the ship or her management led to this unfortunate occurrence. If improvements are suggested during the course of the inquiry it is not for us to come to any decision upon such suggestions. The proper course is to submit them to the Board of Trade. If they think fit to direct an inquiry into the merits of proposed improvements they may do so; but it is no part of our duty to consider them. Mr. O'DOWD. - Clearly not. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This article to continue with the examination of the carpenter's mate..... Petra