The Times, Tuesday, Jan 30, 1866; pg. 7; Issue 25408; col E THE LOSS OF THE LONDON. ----------------------- OFFICIAL INQUIRY. [continued] Mr. Robert TAPLIN, Engineer Surveyor for the port of London to the Board of Trade, was next examined. - In answer to Mr. O'DOWD, he said it was his duty to examine the engines, safety-valves, and fire-holds of passenger steamers. He usually made his examinations twice a year on each ship. His inspection was with a view to the certificate of the Board of Trade, which was given for a period of six months. He surveyed the London three times. He first surveyed her in October, 1864, when her engines were new. He next surveyed her in May, 1865; and lastly in December, 1865. In these surveys he had directed his attention to the engines, boilers, and machinery. Her horse-power was 200, nominally. The pressure on her boilers was 29lb. to the square inch. The screw shaft passed through the after engine-room bulkhead, with a leather washer round it to prevent the water passing through. It was properly fitted, and seemed to him to be water-tight. The plates round the suction pipes were very good and sound. The furnaces were about 3ft. 6in. or 3ft. from the stokhole platform. He granted the London the usual declaration of efficiency. By Captain HARRIS. - The engines were high and low pressure, with direct action. The discharge pipes were copper, with gun-metal valves, and fitted with expansion joints. He did not think anything could have gone wrong with the engines of the London, so as to make her ship so much water. The diameter of the flange was about 20in., and that of the pipes 1ft. By Mr. O'DOWD. - The working of the ship would not have been impeded by a covering between the skylight of the hatchway and the engines. Such a contrivance would have interfered with the draught of air, but such interference might have been counteracted by artificial means. He had only seen instances of the necessity for such protection in two or three cases. The most advisable plan in the case of the London would have been to have procured a covering for the engine-room on the main deck. Captain HARRIS asked the witness whether he had ever been to sea. Mr. TAPLIN replied that he had not. Captain HARRIS remarked that these things sounded very well in theory, but the matter was different when a ship had to encounter a raging sea in the Atlantic. Mr. O'DOWD observed that they had something more than theory for the plan of covering the engine-room; this plan had been reduced to practice on the Clyde. In reply to Captain HARRIS the witness said the London had accommodation for 370 tons of coal. Mr. George BARBER, Shipwright Surveyor under the Board of Trade, was then examined, and stated that while stationed on the Clyde, before his recent transfer to the port of London, he had seen steamships fitted with coverings over the engine-room, and between that room and the hatchway. The plan adopted was this: - Suppose a vessel had a full poop originally, and her engine-room skylight on the upper deck before the poop, the poop was carried out for some feet before the engine-room hatchway, and a water-tight bulkhead was carried from the main deck up to the poop. This plan had been adopted in several ships. There were two in the port of London at present - the Atalanta and the Bellona - which were fitted with such a protection. He approved the plan, and did not see why it might not have been carried out in the case of the London. It might have been adopted on board that ship by the poop being carried out about 15ft. beyond the engine hatchway. Another plan which might be made available for merchant ships was that adopted in the Royal navy. Shutters might be used for the protection of the engine-room hatchway. Captain HARRIS. - For what class of steam vessels are they used in the navy? Mr. BARBER. - For every class. Captain HARRIS. - How is ventilation obtained? Mr. BARBER. - There are several contrivances aboard those ships for obtaining ventilation. Captain HARRIS inquired of the witness whether the shutters he spoke of were used in the navy to prevent men from going down when the ship was cleared for action, or to prevent the water getting into the engine-room. Mr. BARBER replied that he had never heard they were for the former purpose. In answer to a question from Captain BAKER, the witness said he believed that if such a ship as the London was now being fitted up in the Clyde her engine-room would be protected by a poop covering and bulkhead. In reply to Mr. O'DOWD, Mr. BARBER said he belived that the London was fitted in the same manner as foreign-going passenger steamers out of the port of London usually were. The inquiry was then adjourned till this morning. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ End of day 1 of the inquiry. Unfortunately I missed days 2 and 3. Day 4 to follow..... Petra.