The Sun.
London, England, 1866-02-28 00:00:00

The Loss of the London.

We have received the Report of the formal in-
vestigation by the Board of Trade respecting the
loss of the London. This report contains, no doubt,
all the information the public can ever receive as to
the cause of that terrible disaster. It occasioned
at first some natural feeling of dissatisfaction that
the representatives of those who were lost in the
ship were not admitted to cross-examine the wit-
nesses: Swh-a, permission, however, would, it ap-
pears, be impossible under the Act of Parliament
which directs these investigations, and the report
justly represents that such a practice is at once
unnecessary for the purpose of the inquiry, and
might render it impracticable. The persons ap-
pointed by the Board of Trade have power to call
any witnesses they may think necessary, including
the passengers and their representatives, and to
cross-examine them as they please. These re-
sponsible and experienced Assessors are not likely
to neglect any point of uncertainty in the evi-
dence ; while if the representatives of all the pas-
sengers who were lost in such a ship as the London
were allowed to cross-examine the witnesses at
pleasure, the investigation might be indefinitely
prolonged. The Court of Inquiry have examined no
less than 24 witnesses, who all had either a personal
knowledge of the condition of the ship or were ex-
perienced in shipbuilding, and the most minute par-
ticulars affecting the seaworthiness of the vessel have
been inquired into. The result, moreover, is on the
whole as satisfactory as could be expected. It sets
at rest several disputed points, and indicates at least
the proximate cause of the disaster.
It appears, in the first place, that the general
equipment of the ship amply sustained her previous
reputation. The Surveyor of Lloyd's and the Emi-
gration Officers at Gravesend and Plymouth concur
in reporting her as " in all respects a good vessel."
The weight of the cargo and its stowage were the
next points of inquiry, and with respect to these
also the Report decides that the ship was in a satis-
factory condition. The manner of the stowage is
pronounced to have been unobjectionable, and
there is no doubt that, according to the standard
adopted by Lloyd's Surveyors and the practice
of such ships in general, the London was not over-
loaded. The Court, indeed, advert to some evi-
dence to a contrary purport given by a retired
shipbuilder of Liverpool, and they appear to think
that his opinion is not to be altogether disregarded.
They repeat, moreover, the recommendation they
had already made in the case of the Amalia, that
the deep load line should be permanently marked
on all vessels carrying passengers and merchandise.
With respect to the stowage of coals on deck, and
the fact of the ship having set sail from Plymouth
with all her top gear aloft, the Court observe that
she only followed iu these particulars the usual
ILes.ll2lLvassels engaged in tbe same line of

"Eifik4v
cided language. It is impossible to say whether, as
a matter of fact, these circumstances contributed in
any degree to the loss of the ship ; but it may be
hoped, now that attention has been thus forcibly
called to the danger they involve, that they will for
the future be avoided. The only other point relative
to the despatch of the vessel from port was the state
of the weather when she started from Plymouth. As
this is a point upon which Captain Martin has been
severely blamed, it is satisfactory to be assured that
there is no foundation for such a censure. Captain
Stoll, the emigration officer at Plymouth, gave the
readings of the barometer on the sth Jan , the day
the ship sailed, on the 6th, and on the 7th. There
was a rise in those days of about three-eighths of an
inch, and this agrees with the state of the weather
as reported by those on board the ship. Instead,
therefore, of the ship having sailed in the face of
threatening weather., there appears no doubt that
" the weather was very favourable." In fact, for the
first two days after leaving Plymouth, " the weather
was moderate." It was not until Monday, the Bth,
that " it began to blow strong."
We now come to the actual history of the disas-
ter. Here, again, every one will be glad to observe
at the outset that one of the points conclusively
established relieves the captain from another ground
of censure. Severe reflections had been cast upon
him for his supposed imprudence in putting his
ship before the wind. It is agreed upon, how-
ever, " by all the seamen who were examined, that
she was never put before the wind until the fore-
noon on the day she went down," and then only in
order to lower the port cutter in which the survivors
left the ship. This exculpation of the captain on
the points respecting which we have conclusive
evidence, combined with his high professional
character, is justly held by the Court to preclude
any unfavourable judgment respecting doubtful
questions in the subsequent management of the ship.
It is not probable that a man of such experience,
and who behaved so admirably in the moment of
supreme peril, would have committed any serious
errors, and we must believe that the points of
apparent difficulty could have been satisfactorily
explained if any of the officers had survived to give
an account of them. Moreover, the result of this
part of the inquiry is sufficiently definite to render
any such questions of very subordinate importance.
There is no doubt that the proximate cause of the
loss of the ship was the sea getting into the engine-
room and extinguishing the fires. This disaster is
alone sufficient to account for all that followed, and
it only remains, therefore, to inquire by what means
the sea was enabled thus to break into the engine-
room. On this point the Court speak with less cer-
tainty, and appear inclined to think the imnwi ense
body of water which poured suddenly
en-
gine-room could hardly have been
injuriesadmitt beyond
ftnhde
ship had not sustained some further
with
those which were observed. Here,
however,
point is certain, and is to furnishho us er,
one
a practical result.
It is that the engine-room sky-
light was washed away,
and
_that the water poured
into the room
immediately afterwards. When we
opening of 12ft. Gin by 9ft
are informed that the hatchway thus left unpro-
tected presented an
we must conclude that if this accident did not
Gn"
actuallyi cause the final disaster, it was amply suffi-
cient to cause it. The practical question, therefore,
to which the inquiry is reduced is " how the sky-
light was carried away, whether by any imperfec-
tion in its construction, or by carelessness in not
keeping it properly fastened down." On these points
the evidence leaves us to some extent uncertain.
A portion of the jibboom which had been blown
overboard had been recovered, and was fastened
to one stanchion of the hatchway, and it may
be that this floated with the water on deck, and
contributed to unship the skylight. In other re-
spects the hatchway seems to have been as well
secured from the outside as its construction ad-
mitted. There is no evidence, however, enabling
the Court to say whether "the inside fastenings of
the skylight were the weak points of the ship." As
to the construction of the skylight the report says,
that if properly secured it was a sufficient protection

from the sea, "
)t happening."
Ad the conclusion
sufficient. In the
observe that the skylight did in point of fact give
way. But, beside this, a construction which is only
secure " unless when an extraordinary accident
happens," is practically unsafe. It is against extra-
ordinary accidents that ships have to be secured,
and it is the most fatal fault not only of shipbuild-
ing, but of navigation, that everything is conducted
on the supposition that none but ordinary dangers
will have to. be encountered. As much as this, in-
deed, is expressly admitted by the report. " All the
hatchways of a ship," it is said, " ought to be made
as strong as her deck ; and, when occasion requires
it, secure from the intrusion of the sea. This may
be done in a variety of ways more or less simple."
If so, the public will regard it as unpardonable if a
ship is ever sent to sea again with hatchways liable
to the same accident as that which caused the loss
of the London.
The conclusion thus obtained is rendered the more
important from the very similar result of the inquiry
into the loss of the Amalia, which we published a
day or two ago. There, too, the loss of the ship was
proximatelypreceded by the water breaking into the
engine-room and extinguishing the fires. It is evi-
dent, in short, that the safety of these steam vessels
in a heavy storm depends almost entirely upon the
security of the engine-ftwind: nis ',ill: improbable,
as Mr. Wilson thinks, that the construction of our
fast steamers is such as to render them ill adapted
to meet a storm when reduced to the condition of
sailing ships; but, so long as they have steam-power
at their disposal, there is every reason for believing
them as safe, if not safer, than any other sort of
vessel. It is satisfactory that we have thus been
able to trace these terrible disasters to the real cause,
and that this proves to be a deficiency which can be
readily supplemented. We cannot, indeed, say that
human foresight could not have averted the accident,
for such a weak point in the construction ought to
have been detected. But we may rest satisfied that
no biarail ,can be attached to those who had the
management of the vessel, and we may be thankful
that we have discovered the means of guarding
against a similar catastrophe for the future.