British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry

Day 19

Testimony of Edward Wilding, cont.

Mr. Edwards:
I was rather on the arithmetic than the ethics, My Lord. (To the witness.) Now you have Lloyd's Regulations?
- I have them.

20644. You can take it from me that that is not necessarily to be familiar with them. That is a confession. I suppose you are in the ordinary way quite familiar with Lloyd's requirements?
- Quite fairly so.

20645. And you are also familiar with their practice?
- Yes, in general terms; I am not a Lloyd's Surveyor, but in general terms, yes.

20646. When a ship is being built for classification at Lloyd's, the practice is for a Lloyd's Surveyor to be put on to superintend the whole construction of the ship from start to finish?
- One surveyor does not just take one ship. Usually what happens is, one or two Surveyors, according to the size of the yard, and the number of yards, take all the ships being classed for Lloyd's in that yard.

20647. And from start to finish they exercise superintendence?
- In general terms; and if they see anything going wrong they interfere.

20648. I am not suggesting there was anything going wrong, but there was no such check anyhow in the case of the construction of the "Titanic"?
- Yes, two checks.

20649. Well, what were they?
- In the first place by our own assistant managers watching them for the purpose of informing the office whether their requirements were being carried out. In the next place, the Board of Trade surveyors are constantly in the ship from the very time the keel is laid. They are checking the thing right through.

20650. The first check is not an independent check in the sense of being independent of the firm constructing the ship?
- No, but it is independent of the people who are actually building the ship, because it works in this way, that if the assistant Manager, outside finds that the plans are not in some instance being complied with, he has to report the matter, and the work is put right at the expense of the workmen who have made the blunder.

20651. That is to say, one department checks another?
- Yes.

20652. Now with regard to the Board of Trade surveyor, how often did he turn up during the construction of the "Titanic"?
- I really could not say; probably something in the nature of 2,000 or 3,000 times.

20653. Are there any Rules and Regulations similar to Lloyd's or either of the other classification societies by which the surveyor of the Board of Trade is guided?
- You must ask the Board of Trade as to how he is guided. I believe the Board of Trade are pretty familiar - quite as familiar as I am - with Lloyd's and the other classification societies' Rules.

20654. I have no doubt, but I only want to get this. So far, at all events, as you were concerned as one of the responsible officials in the construction of the "Titanic," you were never referred for any one single particular to any standard or regulation required by the Board of Trade?
- Except that, of course, we know what their standard is - their standard, like every other engineer's, is previous practice. We know what they have been satisfied with in previous practice, and we take care we are not below that standard.

20655. I do not want to be at cross purposes. I am not talking about complying with what, in the experience of the Board of Trade's Surveyor, is required, but so far as you personally know there is not in existence anything in the nature of detailed Rules and Regulations for the construction of ships similar to those laid down by Lloyd's in the volume which you have before you?
- Not published.

20656. Is there unpublished to your knowledge a document -

The Commissioner:
I think he has told us that he does not know and that you had better ask the questions from the Board of Trade.

Mr. Edwards:
With great respect, My Lord, if I had thought that was his answer I should not have pursued it. I did not gather the witness said he did not know.

The Commissioner:
I thought he said so. You asked him whether there were any requirements of the Board of Trade similar to those of Lloyd's, and he said, "No he did not know."

20657. (Mr. Clement Edwards.) I did not catch it. (To the witness.) You have heard what his Lordship has said. He understood you to say that you did not know whether there were any in existence?
- I do not know what exists in the Board of Trade Office.

Mr. Edwards:
Then you do not know whether there are such regulations. That is quite sufficient.

20658. (The Commissioner.) What I understand you to say you do know is this; that they have a practice, and that judging by their practice as applied in previous ships in your yard you are able to comply with their practice?
- In the matter of bulkheads, My Lord, in particular, they are guided very much by the standard laid down, which is a partial publication, I know, of the bulkhead Committee of 1891, referring to bulkheads.

20658a. (Mr. Clement Edwards.) That only refers to bulkheads?
- We have been discussing bulkheads so much.

20659. It does not apply to everything?
- It does not apply to everything, no.

20660. Now, I ask you whether you were familiar with the requirements of Lloyd's. Can you say in what other respects the scantlings of the "Titanic" were superior to the requirements of Lloyd's?
- No, I cannot, the reason being that Lloyd's have no published requirements for ships 800 feet long.

20661. (The Commissioner.) That is what I was asked to ask you: Are there any published Rules of Lloyd's which would apply to vessels of the size of the "Titanic"?
- Nothing whatever; they stop at about 650 feet.

Mr. Edwards:
So that when Mr. Sanderson said he put it on the information of the shipbuilders that in certain respects the construction of the "Titanic" was superior to the requirements of Lloyd's, he must either have been in error, or, apart from the builders, he must have submitted the plans to Lloyd's and got some pronouncement upon them.

The Commissioner:
Your logic is wrong.

The Witness:
May I point out this, for example. You are referring to bulkheads, and you did not pursue the question. If you had done you would have found that the thicknesses of the plating were between 10 and 20 percent in excess of Lloyd's requirements. That is not an immaterial matter, any way.

20662. (Mr. Clement Edwards.) That is for a bulkhead of the height of 44 feet?
- Yes.

20663. Now as to the operation of the automatic float in connection with the watertight doors. Have you considered what might have been the effect on that automatic float? We have had it in evidence that the watertight doors were open for the engineers to get through; assuming that to be correct and assuming that at a given moment there was a great rush of water from section 4 through sections 3, 2 and 1 on the level of the boiler room, have you given any consideration to what would have been the effect on the automatic float, or what possible volume of water could have got through sections 3, 2 and 1 before the watertight doors came down?
- In general terms, yes. The float, as I have pointed out, is under the stokehold plates. It is therefore protected from the rush, and, as I explained, the float is rather lighter than a piece of cork. The float, not being directly in the rush, would therefore float as well as a piece of cork. I do not think the question of a moderate flow of water round the float would materially interfere with its flotability.

20664. Has it occurred to you that by the construction of the ship on the level of the boiler room floor there would be an absolutely clear uninterrupted run?
- Yes.

20665. And that the automatic float would not operate until a sufficient quantity of water had come off what I may call the central pathway, so as to come up under the hollow float and operate it?
- Certainly.

20666. Has it occurred to you that there might be a huge volume of water in section 1 and in section 2 before the watertight door had been operated by the automatic float between sections 3 and 4?
- Let me put it in this way and then you will see. I want to make it clear if I can. I think what you are referring to is, assuming a rush of water from boiler room No. 4 into boiler room No. 3 in the first place, whilst there is a clear run through for the water. The doors being open, there is no constraint at the side, if there was a rush of water through the door it would promptly spread round into that boiler room -

20667. You are not rightly assuming what I mean?
- I would like to finish, and then if I am not right you can say so. It would spread round into the boiler room and get round under the plates long before it constituted a rush into the next boiler room. That is the first point. Consequently the float would be operative before the water would get very far through - that is, into the second boiler room - in the nature of a rush. But I quite agree that before the float would operate some, perhaps, three or four hundred tons of water would be able to get through into that boiler room. That three or four hundred tons of water is a small thing in a ship of 50,000 tons. The tanks are bigger than that.

20668. You have not quite assumed correctly what I mean. Just assume for a moment that the water had come with a rush following the breaking of a bulkhead. Assume that for the moment?
- Yes.

20669. The water would shoot through the watertight doorway between sections 4 and 3 at a pace quite sufficient to carry it straight through?
- Oh, no.

20670. That is what I want?
- That is where we differ. The pace would be nothing like sufficient to carry it through.

20671. Why do you say that?
- Because, after all, the speed at which that water goes through is dependent on the head of water. The pace at which that water would come through the door could not exceed the pace that is due to the head of water behind it. I take it you will agree with me on that. The head of water behind it at most could not exceed the 40 feet to the top of the bulkhead. I take it you will agree with me on that. Now the speed at which that water would come through is, therefore, known. It would not suffice in the height of the door to carry more than about 12 or 15 feet across the stokehold from the bulkhead, and by the time that it had gone 12 or 15 feet across the stokehold the water that was coming through at the level of the top of the door would have fallen to the level of the stokehold plate.

20672. Now may I put this. Just for the purpose of my question will you assume (I know it is a large assumption.) that Section 5 becomes filled up?
- Yes.

20673. And that the bulkhead between Section 4 and Section 5 had given way?
- Yes. Do you mean the door or the bulkhead?

20674. I mean the bulkhead. That is to say, that suddenly you get precipitated into Section 4 water representing the roomful of Section 5?
- No, it cannot, because the bulkhead is inside the bunker. That is why I asked you whether it was the door or the bulkhead.

20675. But the whole of the bunker is not inside?
- All except the watertight door is inside the bunker.

20676. But the watertight door does not go the whole height?
- No, but the passage, the trunk passage from the bulkhead to the watertight door, is only just the height of the watertight door.

20677. Therefore it will be double the height of the water?
- Quite unnecessary, because, if I may point out, as long as the connection at the frame at this level, just above the door, is watertight, there is no need for this part to be watertight. That can be common to the bunker, and is common of the bunker.

20678. Assume for a moment that Section 5 has got filled and that the area covered by the watertight door gives way?
- That means the watertight door itself gives way? All right.

20679. Certainly. Can you calculate what would be the pace at which the volume of water represented by the area would come out of the whole sectionful?
- It would be quite calculable of course. I must point out to you that in the event of the door giving way, it is very unlikely that it would give way in such a fashion as to leave a clear opening the full size of the door. That is the first thing.

20680. The smaller the opening, the greater the hinder pressure and the further the water will shoot, is not that so?
- No; the pressure behind it is the same and the water would shoot the same distance. I have had to point that out earlier. The pressure was independent of the distance behind.

20681. So that in your view, at all events, you think that there would not be a sufficient volume of water, or a sufficient top pressure of water I will put it, on the boiler room floor to cause serious mischief in Sections 3, 2 and 1 before the automatic float would have operated the door between sections 3 and 4, if the water had burst through?
- Quite right.

20682. Now I understood you to say that each section was operated by separate and distinct pumping arrangements?
- There are separate and distinct pumps into all the boiler rooms except No. 1.

20683. Now, if Dillon's evidence is correct, can you account for the engineers requiring to put that extra pipe into Section 4?
- Yes, very well.

20684. Will you do so?
- There is only one pump of a capacity, I think, of 150 tons an hour in Section 4 room. I think that is it. In Section 3 there are two pumps, one of 250 and one of 150 tons. They could put on by the permanent pipes, which are provided in the bottom of the ship, one of those pumps, I think the 250-ton one, to the pumping out of No. 4. But what I believe happened is they found the small pump in No. 4 and the 250-ton pump in No. 3 insufficient. The water was very slowly rising against them, and in order to try to get it down they brought forward these temporary connections to try and couple up the other pump in No. 3, which they could only do through these portable connections.

20685. How long ought that operation to have taken, do you think?
- Well, you have got to carry a heavy pipe for about 500 feet through somewhat confined spaces, and you have then got to make the connection to the ash-ejector pump, the small pump in No. 3; and I should think if from the time the decision was reached to the time the pump was started they did it in half-an-hour, they would be doing very well.

20686. Assume that that was so, can you account, if Dillon's evidence is correct, for those watertight doors being left open for an hour and 40 minutes?
- Provided there was no sign of any distress on the part of the watertight door - they would have to keep the door between 3 and 4 open in order to make the temporary connection - then it would be quite a reasonable and proper thing to leave those doors open, because they can all be closed very rapidly from alongside the door just as quickly as from the bridge.

20687. If I understand you correctly in your calculations as to the time taken to sink the ship at certain angles, the forward compartments must have been pretty nearly full of water before an hour and 40 minutes from the time of the striking of the ice had elapsed?
- I agree. About 40 minutes, I think, according to the evidence.

20688. Then, if that is so - 40 minutes to get those compartments practically filled - could you account for those watertight doors being kept open for a further hour?
- I see no reason why they should not be, provided there is no need to close them.

20689. I will put it in this way. What point in the filling of the fore compartments do you suggest would represent a need for the closing of the watertight doors between Sections 4 and 3, 3 and 2, and 2 and 1?
- Whenever water began to come into No. 4 boiler room in a serious volume.

20690. Not until then?
- Not until then. It would be of no value until then; and the reason for that is that it is not necessary till then, because it is not until water begins to come in, and in a serious volume, that it is necessary to take steps to check its flow.

20691. It would not be necessary to close those watertight doors until such a time as might represent the ship being in a state where the whole thing was hopeless?
- Quite.

20692. I will ask you, if that is your view, what view you take as to the advantage or otherwise of having, at all events for a certain part, solid bulkheads, that is to say, bulkheads with watertight doors?
- Bulkheads without watertight doors are ideal. Every watertight door is a little more liable to go wrong than a riveted and caulked plate. If the door is well taken care of, not much more liable, but one must be able to work as an engineering proposition in the bottom of the ships; one must therefore have watertight doors. The best is to have the smallest possible number of them, and take care they are in positions where they will be well kept.

20693. Not only the smallest possible number, but I suppose the fewer watertight doors there are in the lower regions, from the point of view of safety, the better?
- Absolutely. That is one of the objections I made this morning to the "Mauretania" design. There are a very large number in the bottom of it, on the tank top.

20694. I was going to ask you one question about that. I understood your objection to the "Mauretania's" design was also an objection to the longitudinal bulkheads?
- Well, there is some objection to them; yes.

20695. I understood you to put the objections to the longitudinal bulkheads, as in the "Mauretania," upon first of all the commercial ground, greater cost?
- No. As a matter of fact, I do not think there is much difference in the cost.

20696. A diminution in the effective space of the ship?
- No; I am sure I never said that.

20697. It was not your phrase, but I understood you in your evidence last night to indicate that?
- I beg your pardon, you said longitudinal watertight bulkheads, not the double skin; you are mixing up two things.

20698. I may be under a misapprehension, but if you get a double bottom continued some distance up the side above the bilges that will bring you to the construction which is usually described as a longitudinal bulkhead?
- No. That is carrying the inner bottom up the ship's side. That is quite another proposition.

20699. Is not that precisely what has happened in the case of the "Mauretania" - at all events running the length of the engine room?
- Pardon me I do not think so.

20700. You will correct me if I am wrong?
- I am not absolutely familiar with the "Mauretania," but I do not think there is anything of that sort.

20701. Is not the position then, that in the "Titanic" you have the double bottom?
- Quite right.

20702. Which runs out to the bilges?
- Yes.

20703. And that in the "Mauretania" the double bottom means that in the bottom of the ship there is an outer and inner skin?
- It is so in both ships.

20704. But that in the "Mauretania," at all events, running the whole length of the engine room, this inner skin runs right up the side to the height of the engine room?
- I do not think so. I am not sufficiently familiar with the "Mauretania" to be sure, but I do not think so.

The Commissioner:
I am told that is quite a misconception. I do not know whether it will assist you if I give you the transverse section of the "Mauretania." (The same was handed to the learned counsel.)

20705. (Mr. Clement Edwards.) Is it not the fact that in the "Mauretania," as far as you can see from the plan, there is running up from what I will call the inner bottom skin, an inner side skin running the whole length of the boiler space?
- The longitudinal bulkhead not the inner skin. The two things are technically different.

20706. What is the difference between a longitudinal bulkhead and an inner skin running up the sides of the ship?
- In the case of the inner skin the two would be closely connected together forming one girder and part of one structure. They would be connected at every frame or at alternate frames. In the case of a longitudinal bulkhead, the connections would be much more widely spaced, probably something like 30 feet apart instead of six.

20707. So that in the one case what you might have in strength by what I will call the intrinsic strength of the bulkhead, you would probably lose in there being less binding between the outer and inner skins?
- Very likely, yes.

20708. Do you know that in the case of the "Mauretania" they utilised the space between - I will drop the term inner skin and adopt your term - the space between the longitudinal bulkhead and the outer skin for coal?
- Exactly; that is one of the features of their design.

20709. At all events so long as that space is effectively used for coaling purposes there is not anything like the risk of serious danger from the corrosion of which you spoke yesterday?
- I am afraid corrosion is just as bad in a bunker as it is anywhere else, but it has this advantage; a bunker is a much more accessible thing. It is a much larger and more open space, because of the more widely spaced connections, and, therefore, you can get about in it and look after it better.

20710. It has also the advantage if it is used for coal that, while at all events there is the coal there, there is no room for the water?
- Yes, that is quite true, but you must remember that when there is coal there the coal has to be got out of there. As I pointed out to his Lordship this morning -

20711. There is no reason why the coal should not be evenly trimmed from the bunkers on either side of the ship, is there?
- There is no reason whatever, but that is not the point. To do that it means both sides must be open. You cannot pass coal through a watertight bulkhead except with the watertight door open.

20712. That I should gather. Supposing there had been in the "Titanic" a longitudinal bulkhead there would have been greater safety?
- That is a very complicated question.

20713. I noticed that you said that you took the case of the inner skin of the "Titanic" on the starboard side of the spiral space?
- Yes.

20714. And you said that as that inner skin was a certain distance - I think you said at 3 feet 6 inches?
- 3 feet 3 inches, I think it is.

20715. That as the water was coming through there it is quite clear the ice must have penetrated at least that distance?
- I agreed to a suggestion of that sort.

20716. I am glad you call it a suggestion, because I am not aware of any definite evidence here that water was coming in through that skin on the side of the spiral staircase?
- Look at Hendrickson's evidence, and you will see it. He saw water rushing from the starboard side at the bottom of the spiral stair.

20717. He said he could not tell where it was coming from, it was such a rush?
- But he saw it coming from the starboard side.

20718. That is the starboard side?
- At the foot of the spiral stair.

20719. It would be possible for water to be coming from the starboard side to have either been coming out fore of the spiral staircase or a little aft. That is to say, even supposing water was coming more or less from that side, that is not in itself conclusive that there was penetration in the area of the spiral staircase?
- The spiral staircase being in a watertight trunk both at the fore end and across the fore end, and at the side and at the afterend, some part of it must have been penetrated. I mean the side and end and bottom are all watertight, and water can only get in if there is some penetration.

20720. I agree, but whether that penetration is off the spiral staircase on the starboard side or is actually on the starboard side or is even fore of the spiral staircase -?
- But let me point out the spiral staircase occupies practically the whole dimension of that trunk, consequently there must be penetration of the trunk which immediately surrounds the spiral stair.

20721. Does that follow?
- How could water get through the watertight space if you do not make a hole in it?

20722. Allow me for a moment. Is it not possible that water might have come in through the floor of the ship?
- Through the floor of the spiral stair, not of the ship.

20723. Hendrickson's evidence, I think, is rather important. Hendrickson said, in reply to question 4859: "You looked down here and saw it? - (A.) Yes, I saw the water rushing in here. (Pointing on the plan.) I saw it running out of the forepart of the pipe tunnel right down at the bottom of the stairs"?
- Now it is not quite clear, but, of course, it is reasonable that he should call the trunk which surrounds the spiral stair part of the pipe tunnel, and it is in practice. I am only putting to you what I think is the probable explanation.

The Commissioner:
Can you tell me what point you are on at present? What is it you are trying to establish?

20724. (Mr. Clement Edwards.) In regard to this particular point, I am leading up to the question of the bulkheads, and also I am seeking to test the value of Mr. Wilding's evidence as to the disadvantage of the longitudinal bulkhead by his citing in the case of the "Titanic" on a certain assumption that an inner skin in the nature of a longitudinal protection was penetrated by ice. If it is not quite clear that that inner skin - take what I call the spiral staircase area - was not penetrated by the ice it becomes a very important factor with regard to the question of the value of longitudinal bulkheads. That is the point, My Lord. I do not want to pursue it unnecessarily. (To the witness.) Supposing your assumption is not correct that this inner skin on the starboard side of the spiral staircase was penetrated, then there is not very much of a point to be made?
- There is this point to be made, that whether the bottom or side or one end is penetrated the ice must have got well inside the ship to do it.

20725. That is to say it may have got well inside the outer skin?
- Quite. It must have been inside the outer skin, and so far inside the outer skin that it would have penetrated the inner skin.

20726. I am just coming to that. Assume for the moment that your view about the water coming in there were right, it would be equally consistent if water came in through this skin on the starboard side of the spiral staircase; it would be equally consistent with the inner skin having been wrenched and dislocated by the force of the impact as it would be by actual penetration by the ice?
- Well, we have had evidence as to the force of the impact; that is, that there was nothing in the nature of what is usually called impact, but that it was a comparatively light sliding blow. I mean that is the whole character of it.

20727. I will put it in another way. I did not use "impact" as applying to the whole area of the ship, but a sufficient strength of collision if you like, at all events, to penetrate the outside plates?
- Yes.

20728. This inner skin on the side of the spiral staircase, I presume, is connected with the outside frame?
- Yes, the floor is, not the side.

20729. So that a blow, an impact, what you will, sufficient to rip the outside plate, if made at a point where there is a connection between the outside skin and the inner skin, Might be sufficient to rip the inside skin and make an aperture?
- Not if the connections are properly arranged, because it is part of the regular practice, Lloyd's Rules, or other, that your boundaries are stronger than your connections. It would be a bad design if it was not so.

20730. I suppose it is because you could not bring yourself to take that view that you have taken the other one?
- Naturally.

20731. You have said that you have estimated that the aggregate area of aperture was probably 12 feet square?
- No, pardon me, not 12 feet square, 12 square feet. That is another proposition.

20732. Again, I stand humbled on my arithmetic. Has it occurred to you that there was anything which might have been done by the ship's carpenter or any other person to repair it or to prevent the inflow of water?
- We know the hole must have been spread over a length of 200 feet. With a hole of only 12 square feet area, which you can localise actually within a few feet, something might have been done, but when it is spread in unknown positions, over a length of 200 feet, I am afraid nothing could be done.

20733. That is to say, one area could be dealt with by one man?
- No, it would require 50 or 60 men, at any rate, to handle a collision mat.

20734. That is to say, the difficulty, where there is a number of apertures, is having the requisite number of people to go?
- No, it is a difficulty to locate where they are.

20735. I know, but the question of locating them rather depends, does it not, upon a sufficient number of persons being sent?
- I do not think the number of people has much to do with it. Let me put it in this way. The only way you can locate them is this; you cannot get down inside because the water and the cargo is there; you can only get at them by trial and error - by putting something in the nature of a collision mat outside the ship, and in the case of trial and error it is a slow process.

20736. It is a process which might be expedited if a number of persons are working on it?
- I do not think, beyond a very moderate number, it would have much effect. Fifty or 60 would probably do it as fast as 500 or 600.

20737. We have had evidence that there was a certain aperture in Section 6, and there was a very tiny one in section 5?
- Comparatively small.

20738. With your experience do you see any mechanical difficulty in the way of that aperture in Section 5 having been dealt with?
- I am afraid that an aperture in Section 5 involves in itself that the bulkhead was damaged though he did not see any water coming through the damage. As you have put it, there are connections at that point. The bulkhead runs out and is in contact with the shell and to rupture the shell, you must at the same time rupture the bulkhead, though the water in No. 6 boiler room may not have been high enough to flow through the rupture shown.

20739. If that particular damage was a distinct and separate damage, do you see any reason why that might not have been dealt with?
- No, but I do not think it would have had any influence under the circumstances.

20740. With regard to No. 6, where Barrett was, where water was coming in in fair volume, do you see any mechanical difficulty in having stemmed the wound there?
- Something might perhaps be done in the way of a collision mat; but let me point out that the water got into No. 6 so very quickly (we have had in evidence how fast it came in.) that it would have risen to a fatal height if I may use the word long before anything could be got outside over the skin of the ship, to check the inflow.

20741. But the collision mat could have been got there - the fatal height anyhow wherever it was was not reached until twenty minutes past two, the time of the sinking, that is the test of the fatal high water?
- The fatal time, that is, the time when nothing that human ingenuity could do could prevent the ship sinking, is found at a much earlier time than the actual sinking of the ship.

20742. Supposing a long time before that collision mats could have been got out?
- I do not think so. My experience with rigging them shows that it must have been practically up to the fatal time before it could be done.

20743. It has been suggested that there is a better method than that by the collision mat of dealing with apertures in an iron ship, and that is some sort of arrangement utilised from the inside (I am using quite a simple illustration.) in the form of an umbrella, which is pushed out, Made of suitable material, suddenly opened, and the pressure of the water suddenly drives it back like a turned umbrella into the aperture?
- But you have to get inside the aperture to put that out.

20744. One recognises that?
- I think the evidence of Barrett was that he was more or less rushed off his feet by the rush of water. I do not think you could push an umbrella through it.

20745. But you see no reason why that should not have been done in No. 5?
- I have pointed out to you, I think, that I do not think the small leak in No. 5 was material.

20746. A diver might have done this even in No. 6, Might he not?
- Diving is a slow operation and your time is limited.

20747. You have to take the time here which elapsed between the collision and the sinking?
- There were only 40 minutes, about as far as I can tell from the evidence, before the time arrived at which none of those measures would become effective. It would be fairly quick work to get a diver into his dress and down in that time.

20748. You do not think it could have been done in this particular case, anyhow?
- I am afraid, in this case, nothing.

The Commissioner:
If you are anxious to ask any questions, Mr. Scanlan, you must restrain yourself until Monday morning at 11 o'clock. Perhaps, in the interval, you can make what you have to say short.

Mr. Scanlan:
It will be very short, My Lord.

(The Witness withdrew.)