THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE, who had given Notice to ask a Question respecting the safety of H.M. Ships when sent on long voyages, arising out of the Report of the Megœra Commission, repeated the circumstances attending the despatch of that vessel, her final loss on the Island of St. Paul, and the condition of the vessel as disclosed by the Inquiry. The noble Earl said that the result of that Inquiry was, that the Royal Commissioners cast blame upon the Controller of the Navy and other officials, but exonerated the Admiralty itself. He believed that Mr. Childers was absent from ill health when the Megœra was despatched on her unhappy voyage, and that Mr. Baxter was then in charge of the Admiralty; but he much doubted whether, even with the circumstances actually known, that hon. Gentleman and his "Happy Family" would have been willing to undertake a voyage to Australia in that ship. It was very desirable that the public should be satisfied that such arrangements were now adopted as should secure against a vessel in that condition being ever again despatched on a long voyage. The Commissioners had reported that galvanic action had nothing to do with the corrosion of the plates. He (the Earl of Lauderdale) differed from that opinion; and at any rate it was desirable that a scientific inquiry should take place into the possibility of galvanic action arising from the suspected, or from other causes. When the Megœra was built some 20 years ago, the specifications contained nothing with regard to the quality of the iron of which the plates were to be composed—only the iron of the rivets was referred to. Now, it was obviously of the highest importance that the very best quality of iron suitable for shipbuilding purposes should be used. He desired that a register should be kept in which should be entered, not only the original thickness of the plates, but the actual thickness that might be found on examination from time to time; together with remarks upon the causes 1625 of the deterioration or otherwise. He begged to ask Her Majesty's Government, with reference to the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the case of H.M.S. "Megæra," What arrangements have been made so as to ensure, as far as possible, ships not being sent on long voyages which are not in a state to complete the voyage with safety; also, to ask what measures have been adopted to ascertain with certainty the actual state and condition of the iron plates and ribs of a ship's bottom when taken into dock for general repairs, particularly as regards the effect of galvanic action on the iron?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he would endeavour to follow the noble Earl as well as he was able through the numerous remarks he had made, and the Questions he had asked. And first, as to the Report of the Commission presided over by Lord Lawrence. That Report did not free from responsibility certain persons, some of whom had been, and others of whom still were, in the public service. The Report had been sent to those who were still in the service, with the view of their making any remarks which they might think proper to submit to the Admiralty; and, consequently, it had not been finally agreed to. He was sure, therefore, the noble and gallant Lord would agree with him that at the present time, while the proceedings were still incomplete, it would be inexpedient to enter into a debate respecting points which involved the interests of so many persons. He had already made a statement on the subject of the loss of the Megæra, and, probably, he would best consult the convenience of their Lordships if on that occasion he confined himself to one or matters connected with iron ships. When the loss of the Megæra became known in England the Admiralty determined to make regulations which, as far as regulations could do so, would prevent a similar casualty in future; and their attention was specially directed to iron plates and bottoms of ships, in order to ascertain how similar deterioration might be prevented. Much depended on the construction of ships—whether they had double or single bottoms. The invention of double bottoms dated from about 1863, and almost all the ships built since that time were constructed on that principle. One great advantage possessed 1626 by these double-bottomed ships was that all parts of them could be inspected, even when the engines and the stores were in. There was no difficulty, comparatively, in examining one of them whether she was in commission or not. As regarded single-bottomed ships, there were 15 of them in Her Majesty's service; exclusive of floating batteries and gunboats, which two latter classes not being sea-going ships did not require double bottoms. Those 15 ships when in reserve had been, or would be, thoroughly examined—and so far the result had been entirely satisfactory. Since August, 1871, the Jackall and the Simoom had been newly commissioned, and in both cases an overhaul had been made with satisfactory results. It must not, however, be supposed that up to the date of the accident to the Megæra there had been no regulations as to the bottoms of iron ships—by reference to p. 17 of the Commissioners' Report it would be seen that there had been a series of Circulars on the subject. The first was an Order of the 25th of May, 1854, addressed to Commanders-in-Chief of every station, and to the Superintendents of all the dockyards, and it contained these directions—
I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to call your attention to the circumstance that on a recent ocasion of an iron steam vessel being surveyed for repair, it was found that, while the bottom plates were equally corroded externally, internally those in the flat of the floor and under the engines were in places almost eaten through; and this rapid decay being attributed to the plates not being kept properly clean and adequately coated, their Lordships desire you will avail yourself of every opportunity that may offer of having the bottoms of any iron vessels under your orders examined, both internally and externally, for the purpose of cleaning and paying the plates with composition for the preservation of the iron.The next was an Order of the 15th of August, 1866, addressed to the commanding officers of all ships in commission, from which he would make this extract—The insides of iron ships in their double bottoms, wings, and under the boilers and engines as well as the inner portions of the several compartments, &c., being subject to injury from moisture, wherever the anti-corrosive composition originally applied has been removed, it is their Lordships' direction that all such parts, wherever accessible, be carefully inspected in the first week of each quarter by an engineer officer and by the carpenter of the ship, who are to report the exact result of their examination; and, in the event of any dampness, or want of anti-corrosive 1627 composition, or any other defect being discovered, immediate measures are to be taken to remedy the same, by drying as far as possible the ironwork, and making good the deficiency of anti-corrosive composition, or any other defect. Whenever an iron ship is commissioned, the captain or commanding officer is to ascertain what anti-corrosive composition, paint, or other substance has been applied to the parts of the ship above referred to, and he is to demand such quantities of the proper materials as he may consider necessary for keeping the same in perfect condition.The third was an Order of the 17th of January, 1867. It was addressed to the Superintendents and also to the Captains of the Steam Reserves. It contained these directions—With reference to Circular No. 28 S of the 15th of August, 1866, as to the preservation of iron in iron ships, I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to acquaint you that on a ship coming into the hands of the dockyard, or into the Reserve, either from sea, from another yard, or from contract yards, the Captain of the Reserve is to be held responsible for the condition of the inside of the ship under the Circular above referred to; and he is to apply to the Superintendent by letter for such assistance as he may require to keep the ship clean and the iron free from corrosion.The Admiralty were of opinion that those Orders were tolerably clear and distinct; but as it appeared from the evidence given before the Commission that they were read by the officers in the dockyards in a different sense from that which the Admiralty put on them, a Circular was at the present moment in preparation at the Admiralty, re-stating the Orders in an explicit form, and also alluding to the galvanic action of which the noble Earl had spoken, and requiring that the bottoms of ships must be accessible for examination once in 12 months. If it should be necessary for that purpose to remove parts of the boilers and the engines, a report to that effect was to be sent to the Admiralty. The removal of those portions of the machinery would be an expensive operation, and might not always be necessary; but the Admiralty would be responsible if they directed the engines and boilers not to be removed. He had also to state that a new form of ships' books would be shortly issued, which would contain in a most convenient form a complete history of every ship, and would be kept ready to be referred to at any time.
§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he would not detain their Lordships by entering upon the subject of the Megæra; but he desired to offer a few observations 1628 upon the Report of the Commissioners in reference to a public servant whose conduct was commented on in that Report. As to the labours of the Commissioners, he felt that they had taken every possible pains to arrive at a correct result; but there was business done at the Admiralty of which no witness before the Commissioners seemed to have any knowledge. The Commissioners had found fault with Mr. Reed and Mr. Barnaby, and said that the former was not free from responsibility in not making the examination which he undertook in 1866 complete. Now, the persons who were to make complete reports as to the condition of ships were the officers of the dockyards. When he (the Duke of Somerset) was at the Admiralty, he did what other First Lords had done—asked Mr. Reed when he was going to Portsmouth, or elsewhere, to look at a particular ship; but he did not expect him to send in a complete report or to make a complete examination. That was the duty of the officers of the dockyards, who, by stringent directions given in 1854, 1862, and 1865, were responsible for inspecting the inside and outside of vessels. If that were so, it was unjust to turn round on Mr. Reed and declare that the responsibility rested entirely on him. He could not conceive that any Circular could make the regulations more stringent or specific than those which were framed in 1854 or in subsequent years; but he was glad to hear that a complete record would be kept of every ship; but that would be of little avail unless there was a strict investigation of every ship; and to do that properly a man must go on his hands and knees. Of course, the Controller could not do that; but he could order it to be done. He thought that some of the observations made by the Commissioners upon Sir Spencer Robinson and Mr. Reed were hardly just, and the injustice consisted in requiring duties to be performed by them for which other persons were really responsible.