SELECT COMMITTEE APPOINTED. (Hansard, 2 February 1860)

§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE
said, that it was in the knowledge of all who had considered the subject of which he had given notice, that imperfection in the cables and anchors which were manufactured for the mercantile service annually led to a very great loss of life and property. He begged the House, therefore, to bear with him for a few minutes whilst he laid before them a statement which he thought would warrant them in granting him a Committee to inquire into a matter of even so unusual a nature as that of an article of manufacture. It was about forty years since chain cables were first introduced for the use of shipping, and in 1832 a test was instituted by the Government for trying the strength of cables used in Her Majesty's service. In 1840 a disaster occurred at Liverpool in a tempest—the floating lights of that harbour were blown adrift. This led to an investigation by the corporation, and the substitution of chain instead of ordinary cables in light vessels. The corporation, on that occasion, tendered for the maximum s trength of the chain cables, and so 498 successful were they that no accident had since occurred to the light vessels in that port from weakness of the cables. Previous to this a testing machine was erected by an eminent merchant there, which was subsequently made over to the corporation, and is now carried on under their control. A testing-house had been since established at Sunderland. The House would be surprised to hear that no less than 82½ per cent of chain cables sent to the former testing-house broke, and no doubt many of the losses which had been sustained, both of life and property, were attributable to the weakness of the cables used. In 1859, Mr. Blake was deputed, by the operative chainmakers, to address the directors of the Merchant Shipping Association and others on the subject. He stated, on behalf of the chainmakers, that the inferiority of untested chains was very great, and caused an enormous annual loss of life. They therefore prayed that some remedy might be adopted, which should prevent the use of inferior chains. In 1857, Mr. M'Donald, the superintendent of the chain cable testing machinery at Liverpool, reported to the corporation that a great many of the chains made and tested upon the hydraulic principle were defective, that innumerable cracks were discovered after the manufacturer's test, and that from the great strictness with which the duty of examining chains was performed, the manufacturers were somewhat opposed to the trial, while the testing establishment was, in his opinion, in a high degree entitled to the public confidence. Mr. M'Donald had, moreover, on the 13th of January, in the present year, made mention of the case of the Royal Charter as affording evidence of the necessity which existed for insisting upon an efficient public test of cables. He added that from 1855 to 1859 it was found at the testing-house that 82¼ per cent of chain cables sent to be tested inferior, and 58½ per cent of close chain for topsail sheets; and on the 20th of the same month he stated, in a report, that he had the history of every chain sent in to be tested—the number of fathoms which had failed, and the cause of the defects. With regard to the expense of the machine, it might be stated that the machine at Liverpool was self-supporting, consequently that objection could not be urged as a grievance. It was lamentable to see the ignorance of shipowners and surveyors in this respect, and it was very culpable on the part of Lloyd's to insure vessels which 499 went to sea with untested cables. He would give the House instances of three vessels which had been wrecked in consequence of the weakness of chain cables. It would be recollected that the Tayleur sailed from Liverpool, and in passing down the Irish Channel she could not be brought about. She dropped three anchors in succession, but in each instance the chain broke, and every soul on board was lost. The loss of the Prince at Balaclava had been attributed to the fouling of her screw, which prevented her from using her steam-power, while the loss of the Royal Charter was attributed to the surging of her cables consequent on the use of her steam; all the men-of-war rode out the Balaclava gale, and the probability is that the Prince would have done so too if her ground-tackle had been as good as theirs. It was, however, a moot point whether it was desirable to work a vessel under such circumstance up to her anchor. The Royal Charter had two chains, and the weather was moderating when her cable parted. It was known that 13s. 6d. a cwt. was paid for her cables, and it was said that sum was below the price that ought to have been given for good iron. Further, it was the belief of all competent judges that it was entirely owing to the superiority of her chain cables and anchors that enabled the Great Eastern to ride out the fearful gale which wrecked so many vessels while she was at Holyhead. With respect to anchors, he would not go into that question, because the same reasoning applied to it as to cables; but he would merely observe, that when the question of anchors was first considered by the Great Eastern Company, it was found that if an ordinary description of anchor were used, it would require one thirteen tons in weight, and grave doubts were entertained whether it would be possible to handle such anchors in rough weather. The company, however, had adopted Trotman's anchors, which gave the greatest strength in proportion to their size, and subsequently it was found their adoption had been attended with success. The improvement in the manufacture of iron within the last few years was so great by means of the cold-blast system, that cables' could now be made of a strength which was unheard of twenty or thirty years ago. In a ninety-gun ship in the navy, the cable was 2¼ inches. The extreme strain such a cable was calculated to bear was 120 tons, and the proof two-thirds of that, or 82 500 tons. But in the Great Eastern the cable being 2⅝, or only three-eighths more than the other, the maximum strain was 240, and the proof 170 tons. If these results can be relied upon it is possible, at a small additional expense, to furnish ships with cables which will hold them in any weather; and, on these grounds, he asked the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade to consent to the appointment of a Committee on a subject so deeply affecting the lives and property of Her Majesty's subjects. If it were appointed, he could bring evidence quite sufficient to prove that it would be beneficial for the shipowners to adopt cables such as would hold ships in any gale. In every respect the question was so important, that although his Motion was of a somewhat unusual character, he thought there could be no objection to the granting of the Committee.

§ SIR MICHAEL SEYMOUR
seconded the Motion.

§ MR. MILNER GIBSON
said, that although it was true the Motion was not very usual, yet, inasmuch as he thought it quite possible the investigation would bring out some interesting information, and be generally useful, the Government would not oppose the appointment of the Committee. The hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) had already obtained a return with respect to anchors, which might be useful to the Committee. At the same time he must say, that the Government had no intention of appointing a department for the purpose of seeing that merchant vessels carried proper chain cables and anchors, for shipowners already considered that the Government interfered too much with them, by surveying their vessels, and taking care of the public interest. He thought it would be a very easy thing for shipowners to make it incumbent upon the manufacturers of chain cables and anchors to have them tested; but if they chose such articles rather from their cheapness than strength, he did not see how anything could be done, nor did he see how they could be assisted by the establishment of a Government test. At the present moment very valuable Admiralty charts were published at a cheap rate, but merchant shipowners seemed very little obliged to them for the boon, and he believed that many ships went to sea without them, their owners preferring, for the sake of economy, to buy charts of an inferior character. The Great Britain herself, he was informed, 501 went ashore in Dundrum Bay mainly from the circumstance that she had not the Admiralty chart on board. There would be no objection on his part to the appointment of the Committee.