HC Deb 20 February 1857 vol 144 cc936-42
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

I wish, Sir, to move that the House at its rising do adjourn until Monday next, in order that I may be enabled to put some questions to my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, with respect to the state in which the Megœra troop ship was allowed to leave Portsmouth, with 500 of Her Majesty's troops on board. I have I reason to believe that the statement which my right hon. Friend made in answer to the questions which I put to him a few days ago upon this subject was not correct. It is, however, I am sure, unnecessary for me to say that nothing can be farther from my intention than to impute to my right hon. Friend anything like intentional incorrectness in this case. But from certain information which I have received, it is my belief that the dockyard authorities, to whom I presume my right hon. Friend applied for information, must have forwarded to him an inperfect and an incorrect statement with regard to the condition of the Megœra. The House will recollect that my right hon. Friend—in answer to my question, whether the Megœra had sprung a dangerous leak—said that she had not sprung a dangerous leak, and he added, that the only leakage in the ship had been caused by two small screw-holes in her bottom, and that she might have gone round the world with a hand-bucket with perfect safety. That was the statement of my right hon. Friend. Now, Sir, by way of answer to that statement, I will now proceed to read an extract which I have received from a letter written by one of the officers on board that vessel. That extract is as follows:— The vessel started on Monday, and only got 140 miles on her way when she sprang a leak, and was in some danger for several hours, the water rushing in at the rate of twenty tons per minute. On Monday night the cabins were full of water. A good deal of our baggage was almost destroyed: it was covered with water. I will next read passages from two letters written by the officer who commanded the ship, and which, I must add, were not addressed to me, and were not written in a spirit of complaint, but were merely communications which were sent to a near relative of his who forwarded them to me, and which contain a description of the state of the vessel. In the first of those letters, he says— We had a tremendous night on Sunday, and the old ship leaked like a sieve all over. We were up to our knees nearly on the main deck. In the second letter he makes the following statement:— Every port and scuttle on the main deck leaked, and the main deck was at least fourteen inches deep in water, and all the cabins of course afloat. …. The leak was discovered about half-past ten, and she made four feet of water in the foremost compartment in half an hour. This is a statement of facts made by the commanding officer of the ship; and I will appeal to the House whether it is at all consistent with the statement which we received the other evening from my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend told us that the vessel did not spring a dangerous leak, that there had been no cause for any alarm in the case, and that there had only been a leakage caused by the presence of two small screw-holes. The captain, on the other hand, states that she leaked all over like a sieve, and that the cabin and the main deck were full of water. Now, I think, Sir, it is perfectly clear that this must have been a very dangerous leak, and that my right hon. Friend must have been greatly misled by the statement which he received, I presume, from the dockyard authorities. I will now ask the House whether—taking even the statement which my right hon. Friend himself made to us—that statement is not discreditable to the dockyard officers, and whether it is not one that must prove highly unsatisfactory to the country? My right hon. Friend also stated that the cause of the detention of the ship at Portsmouth was, that she had been pronounced ready for sea before she really was so. But is it fair to the officers of the army that they should be exposed to the expense and inconvenience of being detained at Portsmouth, and compelled to undergo the charges to which they must consequently be subjected, because the officers at the dockyard could not discover when the ship would be ready for sea? What are we to say to the statement of my right hon. Friend that the ship was sent to sea with two holes in her bottom? According to the statement of my right hon. Friend there had been two small screws loose, and the water had come in through the holes so created, but he believed that "with a hand-bucket the ship might have gone with safety round the world." Well, Sir, I am only a landsman, and I am no Lord of the Admiralty; and I can, therefore, only judge of such matters by the light of my own understanding. But I confess that I should he sorry to go to sea in a ship having two holes in her bottom; and I will ask my right hon. Friend whether he would himself like to go to sea in a ship with two holes in her bottom, and nothing but a hand-bucket to keep out the water? I beg, now, to ask my right hon. Friend, first of all, whether the Megœra had only two holes in her bottom, and whether a hand-bucket would be sufficient to clear out the water which she shipped? In the next place, I would ask him whether it is not true that it was found necessary to caulk the vessel all over at Plymouth, in addition to stopping the two screw-holes which my right hon. Friend has described? I must likewise ask one more question. The House will observe that on the showing of my right hon. Friend himself the ship was sent to sea in an imperfect state; and that the consequence was, that the property of the officers had been to a great extent under water, that a good deal of it had consequently been destroyed, and that much more of it had been seriously injured. A friend of my own, Major Grey, the commanding officer of a detachment of the 85th regiment, who was going out with his wife and family to the Mauritius, had taken with him a quantity of valuable furniture, the greater part of which was destroyed or injured by this negligence, on the showing of my right hon. Friend himself, on the part of those authorities at Portsmouth who had sent out this ship with two screw-holes in her bottom. I beg leave to ask my right hon. Friend whether, under these circumstances, any compensation will be given to those officers for the injury which they have sustained? In conclusion, I beg leave to move that the House, at its rising, do adjourn until Monday next.

SIR CHARLES WOOD

Sir, I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend, in the first place for having given me notice of his intention to put these questions, because he has thereby afforded me an opportunity of bringing down papers which, I trust, will enable me to give such an answer in this case as will be satisfactory to the House. In the second place, I have to thank my right hon. Friend for doing me the justice of believing that I did not on a previous occasion intentionally make an inaccurate statement to the House; and I hope before I sit down that he will do me the farther justice of admitting that I did not make a statement which was in any respect incorrect. But before I enter into any explanation with respect to the facts of the case, I beg the House to remember that the statement which I made the other evening has not been accurately represented by my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend says—and he twice repeated the declaration—that I said the ship was sent to sea with two holes in her bottom. I said nothing of the kind. What I said was, that it was found that there were two screw-holes in the ship when she was taken into dock at Devonport. It then appeared that there were two holes in the bottom of the ship, in consequence, as it would appear, of two screws not having been properly fixed. But I never meant to say that she had been sent to sea with two screws not fixed, and with two holes in her bottom at the time of leaving port; and I beg leave to add that that was not the case. I hope I may be allowed to refer for a moment to what took place on the preceding evening. I stated that two holes were found in the bottom of the ship; and an hon. Gentleman who contradicted me stated that I was entirely wrong, because the holes were in her bows, and not in her bottom. Well, the holes were seven feet under the water in her bows; and I apprehend a vessel has a bottom under her bows as well as at her stern. I will now read to the House the report that was received from the officers of the dockyard. I cannot pretend to say what took place while the ship was at sea, but what I can state is what was found to be the case when the ship was taken into dock. In order, therefore, that there may be no misunderstanding I will reat the report of the shipwright when the vessel was taken into dock at Devonport. If there were any dangerous holes I apprehend they must have been discovered by the officer who examined the vessel. This is the report— Two screw-holes were found open, being part of the fastening of the rose, over the end of the head pump, seven feet under water. The scuttles are of metal, consequently could not be caulked, but only required the care of the carpenter to bed them in tallow when closed in. The thick lower pieces of ports were caulked in when the ship was fitted out, but some of them had been turned out since the ship was fitted, and therefore should have been attended to by the carpenter. Now, I think that no naval man would say that there was any reason to suppose that there was a dangerous leak, and, indeed, I believe that persons of experience will tell you that no more water could have got through those holes than could have been very easily baled out with a hand-bucket. My right hon. Friend says the ship was sent to sea in a most improper state, and that there was a culpable neglect on the part of the officer in charge. Now I happen to have in my hand a report from Captain Bellamy, a most able officer, whom we called on to report upon the matter, and this is what he says— The whole of the ports on the maindeck, sternposts, and cabin scuttles were fitted in a most careful manner (the stops being fearnaughted and the lower bucklers caulked in), and we are, therefore, unable to account for their having leaked in the manner described. The pipes of Downton's pumps, which had been made good some weeks previously, were re-examined and found perfect two or three days before the vessel sailed. The valves of the watertight compartments were thoroughly examined and made good when the ship was last in dock with her hold cleared. The leaks complained of in the deck and topsides must, we think, have been occasioned by the straining of the ship, as we satisfied ourselves that the decks were perfectly tight before her sailing, and the topside had been recently caulked. With respect to the fact of two 'screwbolt's holes being found open through the bottom part of the fastening of the starboard rose, over the lower end of the pipe of the head pump seven feet under water,' we beg to state that the master smith asserts that the holes for these screws were retapped, and that he himself saw that the screws had been put in tight, and the rose effectually covered pre- viously to her being undocked on the 28th of October last. We have no doubt of the correctness of his assertion, the vessel having been afloat ever since without showing any leakage (after the first twenty-four hours) up to the time of her sailing, as appears by the following extract from the foreman of caulkers' sounding book:—

"MEGÆRA," UNDOCKED 28TH OCTOBER, 1856.
Water in well. In all other compartments.
Oct. 28, 9 a.m. 5 in. None.
Oct.29, 8 a.m. (after 23 hours, 1–58 inches) 6⅝ in None
Oct. 30, 8 a.m. (in 24 hours none) 6⅝ in None
Oct 31, 8 a.m. (in 24 hours none) 6⅝ in None
Nov. 1, 8 a.m. (in 24 hours none) 6⅝ in None
Now, Sir, it is obvious that if these holes had been there at the time she was put into the water, the sea must have come in; but the fact was, that for three consecutive days after she floated there was none, which is an absolue proof that she was not sent to sea with these screws out. Then there is the report of the captain, lieutenant, master, and carpenter, which states— More than once, on going round the different docks, accompanied by the commander, senior lieutenant, and master, I made most particular inquiries relative to the fitting of the ports, scuttles, bucklers, and hatchway covers, and was assured by them that they had been tried and were correct. The carpenter on one occasion was of the party. I questioned him closely on the subject, and he gave me the same assurance. These inquiries respecting the ports, &c., were made some days before the sailing of the Megœra, and there would have been plenty of time to effect alterations in those fittings had it been needed. Your order was, that every possible assistance of men and stores was to be afforded to the Megœra, and that order was fully acted up to. But even after that I have a farther report from the officers called upon, and they say— We beg further to report, with reference to the last paragraph of Commodore Purvis's letter, that so far from the maindeck and sternports of the Megœra having been fitted in an inefficient manner, they were fitted on a plan that had heretofore always given especial satisfaction to the former captain of this ship, as well as to the captains of the troop ships Simoom and Vulcan, and in regard to execution the work necessary to be done in refitting them was performed by some of the best shipwrights in the yard, selected for this purpose, who, as well as the officers superintending, were fully impressed with the importance of the work, and took the greatest possibly pains to make it perfect. The stops of the broadside ports were none of them less than 2¾ inches wide. In addition to those precautions the ports were carefully examined two or three times before the vessel sailed; and we are of opinion that with the proper care and attention always necessary to be given to ports, and more especially in a heavy gale of wind, they would have been found as tight as, under such circumstances, could have been expected. I think, after that, my right hon. Friend must be satisfied that the ship was sent out in a proper and seamanlike manner, after a thorough inspection under the eyes of the captain and officers, who were satisfied that everything had been done which could be effected. It may, however, be satisfactory to the military to state, that she has also been inspected by two officers of the brigade, and that the following is their report— Her Majesty's ship Megœra, Hamoaze, Feb. 18. Sir,—In obedience to your memorandum of yesterday's date, we have been on board the Megœra, assisted by Major Ibbetson, brigade major, have carefully examined the ship throughout, and beg to report on the points directed. 1.That the mess place and cabins for the offiers are clean and properly fitted. 2. The state of the berths for the women is good, and there is sufficient room; and bedding has been supplied for them. 3.The state of the berths for the troops is good. 4. Hammocks, mess-tables, and stools are provided; also coppers and cook. 5.The baggage-room is filled with officers' baggage, and some stowed above, there not being sufficient room. 6.The arrangements for the mess of the steward and cook of the military officers are good. The ship is being cleaned, &c., and is consequently wet. The fittings and accommodations are in every respect properly adapted for the service. 7. Stoves are ready, and will be lighted immediately the powder is stowed (about 3.30 p.m.) FREDERICK HUTTON, Captain Her Majesty's ship Royal William. CHARLES WISE, Captain Her Majesty's ship Impregnable. C. P. IBBETSON, Brigade Major, Western District. Admiral Sir W. Parker, Bart., G. C. D., Devonport. Although, however, I think the vessel left Portsmouth in a perfectly fit state to go to sea, I am inclined to believe that she was injudiciously forced against heavy weather, which naturally made her labour a good deal, and caused the entrance of the water, which certainly did lead to a great deal of inconvenience to those on board. I believe that there has been no neglect whatever on the part of the dockyard officers of Portsmouth, but that the vessel left that perfectly fit for the service for which she was intended; that what followed was the result of one of those unavoidable accidents which no care or skill could avert. Under these circumstances I do not think, Sir, that any officers whatever are to be blamed.