NAVAL LAXITY.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1644, 10 January 1913, Page 5

NAVAL LAXITY.

. —9 — • UNINSPECTED WARSHIP. CASE OF H.M.S. TORCH. By MeEraßhr-Prc6» Ajsoolatlon—OoMrieht (Eec. January 9, 9.50 p.m.) London, January 9 J ' Mr. Churchill, First Loj'd of the Admiralty, replying in the House of Com:e moll 9 to, a question by Major Archer-Shee e, (.Unionist), said the dockyard officials reil sponsible for the sending of H.M.S. Torch 3( 'to sea in an unseaworthy condition, on ;o tho Australian station, had been censured Is for. lax administration. ■ ,y Mr. Churchill stated that the, regula;e' ODS Prescribed, the examination of the cement coating insido the bottom plating i, whenever a ship was in tho yard, bat no Bj such survoy of the Torch was hold between )f 1905 and March, 1912, as the vessel was a out of commission. He had been advised that none of tho officers had actually comIp' mitted a breach rendering them liable to , 0 disciplinary measures. The only deficienoies revealed werei due to a want of judgy mont, and common sense, and business-like capacity. The captain of; the dockyard 8 had been severely oensured, ; and .the • offioers of the yard immediately concerned g. wpuld be informed that they had incurred n tho Naval Lords' eerious displeasure. The s _ Sydney dockyard was. in a state-of tran- „ sition, arid there was no reason'to believe [_• that similar laxity existed elsewhere;' but 6 a full inquiry: was being madfl at other dockyards abroad to prevent a recurrence. 11 The Way in which the Torch and the . Prometheus were repaired in Sydney Dock-' f> yard last year has been brought forward e several times. Mr. 'Winston Churchill, the 3 First Lord of the Admiralty, in answer to Major Archer-Shee, in the House of Commons in November, stated that it was be--0 cause certain prescribed inspections had 0 been neglected—improperly neglccted-^by : y the dockyard officials at Sydney that the )- Torch came to be in this condition. Ho e did not pretend to. 6ay that the Admiralty y regarded this episode with., satisfaction, d : and the board had taken official, notice of [. the matter. . !■-.'■ . , n Early, in 1911, Mr. Churchill exnlained, , it was necessary. to' reinforce the China station, and the Prometheus was sent bn e a voyage from Australia to-the China [-, seas. The Prometheus was only adapted e for short-sqa service, and-there was no doubt that she was much delayed by her boilers firing, pnd the breakdown of evaiPorators. It was too much to be expected' '■ of her to be isent across tho Pacific fiom .- Australia. Tho departure of- the Proinek theus.'from .Australia made it necessary j- to recoinmission the. Torch, which was an, older, vessel.- Thto Torch would not havo been recommissioned but for the Tsct that 1 the other vessel had, been called *way. tp ■ ,China. Under tho ' regulations of the Admiralty she ought to have been jr.. thoroughly ' inspected, and her, conr* dition watched from year-to year. But i the dockyard officials at Sydney failed to ■ ' carry out the, authorised periodio surveys on the ship, and the consequence was that, the'extent of tho deterioration which had taken place in her was not-fully appre- , ciated when she was.hurriedly sent to sea. There was no question of gruldging tho : moqey necessary for ropairs. This was, a ship which it had not been'intended to use again, and ! only urgent need made it nccessarj; to fit her out. It was becertain prescribed inspections had t been improperly neglected that her . condition was not satisfactory. Ho , was told that the, chief defects Consisted mostly iri the steel upper deck being rusted, 1 and iri 9 the ,bottom plating under the boilers bo--3 ing largely reduced in thiokness. Both these defects would have been detected if the dockyard officials at Sydnoy, had car- ■ ,ried out tho' authorised inspections. • ' Lord Charles Beresford charged Mr. fc- C.hurehill with making "a 1 most' lame! ohd , halting/answer.".. Fancy a warship' going ' : to set-in such a oondition that 1 the:screw ■ .'.dropped off! He wished to whother it full and public inquiry would bo" uuK - dertaken as to ; i why_ the 'Torch .went to; r sea in such , a oouditioni Ijord ■ Charles ; has ■ followed up' this doriiarid by a letter 1 to tho press, in which ho said:— , "In April;; 1911, H.M.S. Torch, being i ordered to-be commissioned, the captain . arrived, from England and took over cemi' | n »ud. ! :: Tho ship wns then,being.refitted in tho-dockyard. The estimate of the , dockyard'for repairing her and making hor efficient was J3OO. The enpiain pointed-out that this sum was totally ,inadequate, and succeeded in getting u 6um ; of about spent on her.' After tho repairs l, had been effected the" enpiain again took exception to her condition as He was ordered to take her to sea. ' - •' ''A r ticle l9pß of the King's Eegulntions ■ fv j. Admiralty lays down - ,P« 0I, e a ship prooeeds to sea a certificate is necessary 6tating that tho ship , isi m all respects complete, efficient, and nt to proceed to sea'.". This certificate was : not given; in the case of H.M.S. Torch. She.proceeded ta cruise in the Southern Pacific.'. During the> cruise her screw '• parted from the 6haft; and sank, and\ she fcack to Sydney in .Novomber. 1 , iaa. bhe was again placed in dockyard nands, when it was discovered, on nmovsheathing,'that:the steel 1 bottom of the ship had perished Gver a .large area. In addition to this, the steel upper deck.had also perished, Tendering !w 2 U ,'i i lne ® c '™t to fight in action if ! she had been caHed upon. There con be 1 no that if the ship had met with ' heavy weather she might have foundered." 1