Lords Sitting of 21 February 1876

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Private Bills and Opposed Private Bills, appointed and nominated.
CHAIN CABLES AND ANCHORS.

  QUESTION.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETrose to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question on the subject of Chain Cables and Anchors, and said that he had placed this Notice on the Paper because in reading in the newspapers the accounts of the voyage of the Prince of Wales, he had been struck—and he thought their Lordships must have been struck—by the remarkable fact that the Serapis, in which His Royal Highness was embarked, appeared to have been supplied with very bad ground tackle. Her anchors and chains had given way on more than one occasion. He understood that, in the Piraeus, both cables broke,
  546
  she lost two anchors, and she was carried against the Osborne, to the injury of both vessels. Again, when the Serapis arrived on the coast of India one of her anchors gave way, and she drifted at considerable risk. Now these circumstances in connection with this vessel appeared so singular that he had been induced to ask how it came about that her cables and anchors should be so bad. "With regard to the way in which anchors were supplied to the Navy, their Lordships were aware that several kinds of anchors had been from time to time submitted to the Admiralty. Among them were Porter's, of which they had heard a great deal; Trotman's, of which much had been heard in the Lobby of the House of Commons; Rogers's, and Martin's which a great many naval officers preferred. He wanted to know how many firms now supplied anchors to the Admiralty? Formerly the Department contracted for anchors only with firms of well-known reputation: but it was said that, from motives of supposed economy, there was less precaution now in that respect, and that, as a consequence, some of the anchors supplied for Her Majesty's ships were of inferior quality. The turret ships were supplied with Martin's anchors; but it was said that, though the Captain of the Serapis had applied for Martin's, he was not supplied with them, but with anchors of an inferior description. He wished for information on that point; and also as to the test applied to anchors used in the Navy. With respect to chain cables, he should like some information of a similar character. Formerly, the whole of a cable was tested by the Admiralty by subjecting it to a very severe strain in excess of what it was likely to have to endure when being worked in a ship; but when he was at the Admiralty it was thought that such a system of test was not a good one, as it was calculated to injure the fibres of the material in the cables which stood it. On that account it was considered better to take out a few links here and there and subject them to a very severe test, even at the risk of breaking links of ordinary strength. There were objections to both systems; and probably the best security we could have in respect both of anchors and cables was to contract for them only with firms of established reputation. He wished to ask Her Majesty's Govern-

  547
  ment, Under what system the Admiralty-procure chain cables and anchors for Her Majesty's ships; and what is the mode of testing now adopted; also, whether the rumours of the failure of the chain cables in the voyage of the Serapis are true or false?
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he was informed that when, in the harbour of the Piræus, the Serapis was about to take up the berth which had been assigned to her, owing to some mistake or other—probably to one arising from a mistake as to the language used—she overshot the mark. When this was perceived she was brought up suddenly, and the cable snapped. A link was taken out of it and sent to England, and it proved to be of good iron. Before the Serapis started her cables had been tested and were reported to be composed of the very best materials:—a link that was found to be bad was taken out at Portsmouth. The regulations for testing required that so many links in a length of chain cable should be subjected to a severe test. The anchors also were submitted to tests laid down in Regulations. In fact, every possible care was taken to ascertain that both anchors and cables were trustworthy; and he could not find that any accident similar to the one he had just referred to had occurred to the Serapis on any of her previous trips. As to Martin's anchors, they were only served out to the largest class of ships.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETwished to remark that Martin's anchors were used in the Navies of almost all other nations. They were adopted by France, by Germany, by Austria, by Italy, by America, and they were supplied to all our large iron-clads and turret-ships. Why should the other ships of the Navy have anchors inferior to those used generally by so many other nations and by our own iron-clads?
  THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEsaid, that the character of the bottom on which the anchor was let go had very much to do with the matter. He believed there was no test of either chain cables or anchors in the Merchant Service, and such a state of things was very dangerous.
  LORD ELPHINSTONEsaid, that, from information received here, it would appear that the breaking of the anchor of the Serapis was caused by the anchor
  548
  being dropped on a rocky bottom. Ships like the Serapis were built by contract, and their anchors and cables were supplied by contract; but the Admiralty subjected both the latter to the tests referred to by his noble Friend who had answered the Question of the noble Duke.

METROPOLIS—TRAFFIC AT HYDE PARK CORNER.—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT ENFIELDwished to put a Question to Her Majesty's Government upon a subject of interest to the convenience of those who lived in and those who visited London. He referred to some plan being adopted to relieve the pressure of the traffic at Hyde Park Corner, which for at least six months of the year was excessive. He believed that several Governments had from time to time considered the propriety of relieving this pressure by making a new road across the Green Park at some point between Park Lane and Apsley House, but it remained for the present officials at the Board of Works to propose, as they did last year, a feasible and popular plan. They set to work in a very business-like way; a model was prepared by direction of the Chief Commissioner of Works; it was exhibited in one of the Committee Rooms of the House of Commons last Session, the opinion and criticisms of both Houses were invited to the subject, and if he might judge from the teneur of the language held by his noble Friends the Chief Commissioner of Public Works in the House of Commons, and the noble Duke the Lord President in their Lordships' House, the Government had every reason to be satisfied with the reception given to their scheme. On the 7th of June last year Lord Henry Lennox, in reply to a Question from Lord Ernest Bruce,
"From the tenour of the noble Lord's Question, I hope I may consider that he approves the scheme for relieving the traffic at Hyde Park Corner, which is pointed out in the model now exhibiting in the Conference-room; and I am happy to assure the noble Lord that the drawings are all ready, and that as soon as the scheme has been approved by the House of Commons the road will be commenced at once."—[3 Hansard, ccxxiv. 1461.]
On the 2nd of July, 1875, the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon), in reply to Lord Redesdale, said—

549
"He believed that the model which had been placed in a Committee-room of the other House had been very generally approved. It was thought that the execution of the plan would afford the relief to the traffic which was no doubt required. As soon as the model had been finally approved and adopted it was the intention of the Government, before the end of the Session, to take a Vote for the purpose of making the road, which would be commenced in the autumn, and he hoped that at an early period next year it would be opened to the public."—[3 Hansard, ccxxv. 869.]
The Estimate was voted to the amount of £5,000 for this object on the 4th of August. After these declarations he was afraid some disappointment would be felt at nothing having been done, but he trusted their Lordships would hear to-night that this necessary metropolitan improvement, though unluckily postponed, had not been finally abandoned. He begged to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether, in accordance with the statements made in both Houses of Parliament during the Session of 1875, the new road across the Green Park, to relieve the traffic at Hyde Park Corner, would be commenced and completed with the least possible delay?
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, in reply to the Question of his noble Friend, had to say that his noble Friend was perfectly correct as to what occurred last year. Speaking from the information derived from the Department of Works, he believed, when he spoke last year, that the new road would be carried out, with the result of affording considerable relief to the traffic at Hyde Park Corner. But at the end of last Session the attention of his noble Relative the First Commissioner of Works was called to certain objections to, and defects in, the plan, which objections and defects had up to that time escaped notice. When, however, from a personal inspection, he satisfied himself that they did exist, he thought it better to defer for another year any actual steps in the way of opening a road rather than run the risk of carrying out a faulty plan. Since then several other plans had been under consideration, but up to this time no satisfactory solution of the difficulty had been come to on the subject.
THE EARL OF POWISthought that, though the plan of last year might be open to objection, yet a satisfactory road might be made on the lines of the plan
550
if certain modifications were adopted. He thought, for instance, that the scheme of a sub-way under Constitution Hill might be re-considered. A survey made by the Woods and Forests in 1857 showed that without any disturbance of the gradient a head-way of 9 feet or 10 feet might be obtained, which would be sufficient for most of the traffic, as it would suffice for broughams, cabs, and open carriages.
LORD HAMPTONobserved that the noble Duke had not stated what were the objections to, and defects in, the plan of last year. He believed the sub-way was the true mode of meeting the difficulties of the case.
THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGEsaid, the real difficulty was this—they could not run one flow of traffic across another without causing a block. Down from Hamilton Place and Park Lane there would be a flow of traffic which must cross the great traffic along Piccadilly. The traffic in that part of London—both the traffic coming down from the direction of Oxford Street and that along the line of Piccadilly itself—had enormously increased of late years. He knew that a sub-way was open to certain objections because of its interference with the course of sewers and gas mains, but he had a firm conviction that it was the only solution of the question.

METROPOLIS—TRAFFIC AT HYDE PARK CORNER.—QUESTION.

  PRIVATE BILLS.
  Standing Orders Committee on, appointed: The Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:

  D. Somerset.

  V. Hardinge.

  Ld. Chamberlain.

  V. Eversley.

  M. Winchester.

  V. Halifax.

  M. Lansdowne.

  V. Portman.

  M. Bath.

  L. Camoys.

  M. Ailesbury.

  L. Save and Sole.

  E. Devon.

  L. Colville of Culross.

  E. Airlie.

  L. Ponsonby.

  E. Carnarvon.

  L. Digby.

  E. Cadogan.

  L. Sheffield.

  E. Belmore.

  L. Colchester.

  E. Chichester.

  L. Silchester.

  E. Powis.

  L. Do Tabley.

  E. Verulam.

  L. Skelmersdale.

  E. Morley.

  L. Belper.

  E. Stradbroke.

  L. Ebury.

  E. Amherst.

  L. Egerton.

  E. Sydney.

  L. Hartismere.

  V. Hawarden.

  L. Hylton.

  V. Hutchinson.

  L. Penrhyn.

  OPPOSED PRIVATE BILLS.
  The Lords following

  ; viz.,

  M. Lansdowne.

  L. Ponsonby.

  L. Colville of Culross.

  L. Skelmersdale.

  were appointed, with the Chairman of Committees, a Committee to select and propose to the House the names of the five Lords to form a Select Committee for the consideration of each opposed Private Bill.
  House adjourned at a quarter to Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.