§ MR. TATTON EGERTON (Cheshire, Knutsford)I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the account in the Times of 1st April with reference to the breakdown of H.M.S. Aurora, is correct; if it is correct, who who were the designers and makers of the engines; whether the makers of the engines made any remonstrance to the advisers of the Admiralty, calling attention to the evident weakness of the piston rods to transmit the power; why were the piston rods renewed, and were they increased in sectional strength; and is there any clause in the contract with the makers of the engines making them responsible for any faults in the design of the engines, or are they relieved from any such liability?
§ LORD G. HAMILTONThe report in question is not correct. The facts are as follows:—During a recent full-power trial of the engines, certain defects were revealed which have necessitated an inquiry by the Dockyard officers. The Aurora has therefore been ordered home to Devenport, and will be replaced by the sister ship Narcissus. The size of the piston rods fitted in the engines of the Aurora was that proposed by the makers of the machinery, Messrs. Thomson of Clyde Bank, and was of a section equal to those fitted to engines of the same power which have been placed in four other vessels of the class. A piston rod was renewed in one out of the six cylinders in the Aurora to suit the new piston fitted at the Dockyard. The size was then increased one-sixteenth of an inch, but not on account of a supposed lack of strength in the original design. By a clause in the contract, the makers of the machinery were responsible for its efficiency for a period of twelve months from the date the ship was first commissioned.