HC Deb 05 July 1875 vol 225 c949

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he will state the reason why the name of Her Majesty's ship "Osborne" was not included in the Return, "Navy (Ships Ballasted)," ordered to be printed on the 8th June last, although the "Osborne" is a paddlewheel steamer, and has about 100 tons of ballast on board to make her seaworthy; and, if he can state whether there are not other ships besides the twenty-two carrying 2,700 tons of ballast which have been omitted from that Return?


, in reply, said, that he was informed of the fact that the omission arose simply from an oversight on the part of the officer who was responsible, and that the person who actually made out the Return omitted the name in consequence of the probable immediate removal of the ballast. There were not, as the hon. Member supposed, 100 tons of ballast in her, but only 32 tons. Originally there were 43 tons, but it had been reduced to 32 tons, and it would eventually be removed altogether. There were no other ships which had been omitted from the Return.

Back to