British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry
Day 21
Testimony of Sir Walter J. Howell, cont.
The Attorney-General:
I think not. The only point of it is to call the Court's attention to the fact that there is that Rule in existence and except for that Rule there is no statutory requirements with regard to bulkheads and watertight compartments.
The Commissioner:
And the object of the Rule is to enable shipowners to be relieved of the obligation of finding a certain number of lifeboats.
The Attorney-General:
I think the object was to encourage them to have efficient watertight compartments.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
And so it was said to them, "If you will satisfy us on the question of watertight compartments then we will say to you, 'You need not carry so many boats.'"
The Attorney-General:
Yes. I can put a few questions which will make it quite clear. The policy has been almost from the start; anyhow up to a very recent date. I will not say anything about what it is to be in the future - that it was more important to have efficient watertight compartments than to have a full number of boats.
The Commissioner:
Yes, and that is right, is it not?
The Attorney-General:
I should have thought so; it is much more important to keep your vessel afloat than to have a large number of boats.
The Commissioner:
Of course, obviously.
22220. (The Attorney-General.) Otherwise your vessel might go down at once; if you had not efficient watertight compartments, you would have no time to launch your boats if the ship was seriously damaged. But I think that has been the policy and it has been considered a good many times. I think that substantially represents what it is and I will put the dates and the material facts in connection with it to Sir Walter. (To the witness.) In 1887, to which I call your attention, the then Assistant Secretary of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade gave evidence before a Select Committee of the House of Commons on Saving Life at Sea?
- He did.
22221. I see there were a good many inquiries about this time. There was first of all, in 1886, a Board of Trade Departmental Committee, which sat to inquire and report into this matter?
- Yes; that was quite a small Committee, a domestic Committee.
22222. A Committee of three, and also in 1886 there was a Royal Commission which sat on Loss of Life at Sea?
- That was the great Royal Commission on Loss of Life at Sea, and it mentioned this quite incidentally in its report.
22223. And it reported in 1887 I think?
- Yes.
22224. Correct me if I am wrong - you are much more familiar with it than I am - it really hardly touched this question, did it?
- No, quite incidentally.
22225. In 1887 a Select Committee of the House of Commons sat, and then in giving evidence (I take this as the statement of what was thought to be the policy then.) the assistant Secretary of the Marine Department said this to the Committee, "I would not interfere with the construction of the ship." "As regards bulkheads, there used to be a law that a ship should have one bulkhead before the engine room and one aft." "The law was repealed which compulsorily required two bulkheads, and on the repeal of that law there came to be four, five, and six bulkheads directly. So that," as he argued, "that shows that if you want improvements to go on you must not tie any industry down by hard-and-fast statutory laws, however good they may appear at the moment." The point is, I understand, that then it was made clear that as soon as you had removed the provision which required these two bulkheads the number of bulkheads commenced to increase?
- Yes.
The Commissioner:
Can you explain to me why that was?
The Attorney-General:
I should assume what it means is this: that if you have a provision which says you must have a minimum or you must have those two, generally speaking, persons were satisfied with having those two. As soon as that regulation was done away with then it was considered that the minimum was dispensed with.
The Commissioner:
I expect that is the explanation.
The Attorney-General:
I see sir digby Murray, who was the then professional member -
The Commissioner:
I am told as a probable explanation that about this time, or somewhere about this time, Lloyd's required more bulkheads.
The Attorney-General:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
And then the shipowners would introduce them for the purposes of insurance.
22226. (The Attorney-General.) Quite. It is not perhaps a very fruitful subject of speculation or enquiry, but it is rather interesting to know whether Lloyd's did not do it in the same way, because of course the minimum had been repealed and then they began to consider that something else was necessary. Their minds were directed to the question. Sir digby Murray, the then professional member of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, also gave evidence before that Committee?
- Yes.
22227. He was in favour of the efficient subdivision or bulkheading of passenger ships as a better method of ensuring the safety of the passengers than by large provision of boats. That was the policy he advocated?
- Yes.
He said, "I think I may further say that it is perfectly useless to supply a ship with a number of boats if in case of collision she is to founder immediately if she is not properly subdivided so that she will float, or, on the other hand, if there are not a sufficient number of seamen on board the vessel to man the boats."
The Commissioner:
What is it you are reading from?
The Attorney-General:
I am reading from the evidence of Sir digby Murray, then the professional member of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade before this same select Committee of the House of Commons in 1887. The Committee reported in 1887. I have got all the documents, but it is so much more convenient to summarise it, and get it on the Note for your Lordship in this way.
The Commissioner:
That is what I want.
The Attorney-General:
It saves so much looking through documents.
The Commissioner:
Yes, and there I can find it.
22228. (The Attorney-General.) It is very difficult if you have to follow this from several documents. The Committee reported, "Though the question of construction was clearly not included in the reference to the Committee, still they think it only right to state, after having heard the evidence, that the proper placing of bulkheads, so as to enable a ship to keep afloat for some length of time after an accident has occurred, is most important for saving life at sea, and a thing upon which the full efficiency of Life-saving Appliances largely depends." Then in 1890 a Committee came into existence which was presided over by Sir Edward Harland?
- Yes.
The Commissioner:
Was that gentleman a member of the firm of Harland and Wolff?
22229. (The Attorney-General.) I think so?
The Witness:
Yes.
22230. (The Attorney-General - To the witness.) He was, I should imagine?
- Yes.
22231. I am told he was the founder of the firm. That Committee was formed mainly with reference to the standard to be required by the Board of Trade in granting exemptions under the Life-Saving Appliance Rules?
- Yes, it was the fact that that Rule was laid down which led to the appointment of the Committee.
22232. That Rule came into existence in 1890?
- Yes.
22233. Under that Rule some standard was to be laid down by which the Board of Trade was to determine whether a ship was divided into efficient watertight compartments?
- Yes.
22234. So this Committee was formed?
- Yes.
22235. Then, incidentally, the best method of dividing ships into watertight compartments was also discussed?
- Yes, that was a necessary part of it.
22236. One further thing with reference to it. Was the method then considered of subdividing ships into watertight compartments so as to float in moderate weather with two compartments in free communication with the sea?
- That was what was laid down.
22237. I mean it was not two adjoining compartments?
- "In moderate weather with two compartments in free communication with the sea."
22238. When that Committee reported did the Board of Trade adopt its recommendation with regard to the standard of subdivision into watertight compartments?
- They did.
22239. That would be presumably when an application was made under this Rule 12?
- Precisely.
22240. That was the standard then upon which they acted?
- That was the standard.
There is one clause - I will not trouble you with the book, I will read it so as to get it on the Note - in the regulations and suggestions as to the survey of hull, equipments, and machinery of steamships carrying passengers issued by the Board of Trade under the merchant Shipping Act which deals with this question of bulkheads and that is the only other, I think, that there is dealing with bulkheads. It is Clause 16 page 8 of the book. It is in another book, to which reference has not been made, at any rate, not today. That is why I was going to read it, so that your Lordship will have it on the note. I wanted to avoid having to refer to the book. Your Lordship will find it on this separate paper, but I will read it.
Mr. Edwards:
May I ask through your Lordship the learned Attorney-General to allow my friends and myself to have a look at those instructions. Application has been made to purchase at the Board of Trade these particular instructions, and we have been unable to get them.
The Attorney-General:
That shows the advantage of applying to this Court, because my friend shall have them without purchasing them.
The Commissioner:
Certainly you shall see them.
Mr. Edwards:
Thank you very much.
The Attorney-General:
If my friend had applied to me he should have had them at once. "An efficient and watertight engine room and stokehold bulkhead, as well as a collision watertight bulkhead, and an after watertight compartment, to enclose the stern tube in each screw-shaft, should be fitted in all sea-going steamers, both new and old, and in the absence of any of these the case must be specially referred to the Board of Trade before a declaration is given. As regards other bulkheads, although a thorough subdivision of the ship is desirable, the surveyors should not for the present refuse to grant a declaration because these are not fitted. The distance of the collision bulkhead from the after side of the stem measured at the level of the lower deck should not be less than one -twentieth of the vessel's length, Measured from the afterpart of the stem to the fore part of the stern post, on the range of the upper deck beams in one, two, and three decked and spar decked vessels, but on the range of the main deck beams in awning decked vessels." In the book the next two paragraphs are struck out because they are altered by another circular. It goes on as it now is: "The collision bulkhead."
The Commissioner:
No, the next paragraph I have is: "In all sea-going steamers coming under survey for passenger certificate for the first time, the following requirements regarding the height of the bulkheads should be complied with"; and then "the collision bulkhead," etc.
The Attorney-General:
Then your Lordship has the modern edition, which is right.
The Commissioner:
What is the date of this?
The Attorney-General:
February, 1907; the amendment of Clause 16.
The Commissioner:
Apparently that is the date of the amendment.
The Attorney-General:
That is right.
The Commissioner:
But it is not the date of the original Rule?
The Attorney-General:
No, I thought your Lordship wanted the date of the amendment.
22241. (The Commissioner.) I did, but I wanted the date of the original Rule as well. I think it is 1905.
The Witness:
That is quite right my Lord.
The Attorney-General:
I am not sure whether I can give you that information. We have it as far as this, that Clause 16, at any rate, is incorporated in a book which is issued in 1905, but I am not at all satisfied that it was not in existence before, and that is what I am enquiring into. At present we will take it 1905 and we will see whether that is right. 1905 as amended in February, 1907.
The Commissioner:
That is the way I have taken it. You are quite right in saying it is not certain, that is the right description.
The Attorney-General:
No, but at any rate it is how we have got it at present. The amendment is "In all sea-going steamers coming under survey for passengers certificate for the first time, the following requirements regarding the height of the bulkheads should be complied with. The collision bulkhead is in all cases to extend to the upper deck. If an iron or steel watertight deck or flat is fitted below the upper deck at the afterend of the vessel, and forms the top of the after watertight compartment, the aftermost bulkhead may terminate at the said watertight deck or flat, but if no such watertight deck or flat is fitted, the aftermost bulkhead should extend to the upper deck. When the loadline disc of the vessel is placed at least as low as is required, by Table C of the freeboard tables for awning deck vessels, the remaining bulkheads may terminate at the deck next below the upper deck, but when the disc of vessels other than those of the awning deck type is placed higher than required by Table C, all the bulkheads should extend watertight to the upper deck. In interpreting the above Rule, in the case of vessels of the shelter deck type, the deck next below the shelter deck may be regarded as the upper deck, and accordingly the collision bulkhead, as well as the other bulkheads, May terminate at the deck next below the shelter deck provided the surveyor is satisfied that the deck in question would not, owing to a deficiency of sheer, or for any other reason be brought dangerously near the water surface in the event of the collision compartment being holed. When, however, the surveyor is in any doubt as to the vessel being able to steam at sea with the collision compartment holed, full particulars should be submitted to the Board of Trade before a declaration is issued. The above regulations regarding the height of the bulkheads and the position of the collision bulkhead are intended to apply only to passenger steamships coming under survey hereafter for the first time." And then you go back to the original clause 16, My Lord, "The collision bulkhead should not have any opening in it, nor should it be fitted with any valves or cocks for draining the compartment in front of it. Pipes should not be carried through it without the special permission of the Board of Trade." I do not think I need read the next two paragraphs; they do not affect this.
The Commissioner:
The "Titanic" complied with them?
[There is no question 22242.]
22243. (The Attorney-General.) Yes, and we will call the gentleman who went through it. I will go into detail if necessary. I am only anxious with Sir Walter to get all the material before you, before we get to the actual facts of what happened. (To the witness.) Did the question of bulkheads and watertight compartments come before the Board of Trade at all, except in connection with this Clause 16, because we know the "Titanic" made no application under Rule 12?
- It only came formally before the Board of Trade in connection with arrangements for closing the watertight doors and in connection with the loadline certificate.
22244. I think I caught the expression "formally." Did you use that?
- Yes, I think so.
22245. That would be a matter which would formally come under the cognisance of the Board of Trade, although the surveyors on board the ship may see what is going on from moment to moment?
- Quite right.
22246. What was done in those two matters would have to be dealt with by the Engineer surveyor-in-chief and the principal Ship Surveyor?
- Yes.
22247. I think those are the two who are concerned with it. Has an expert committee been recently appointed by the President of the Board of Trade to consider the whole question of bulkheads and watertight compartments?
- Yes, quite recently.
22248. That, I think, is since the "Titanic" disaster?
- Quite so.
22249. That is an Advisory committee which is now either sitting or at any rate which is now considering it?
- Yes.
22250. (The Commissioner.) Has it sat yet?
- I believe it has, but I am not quite sure, but it has certainly held preliminary meetings.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, it has held those, I know, because the question came before me.
The Commissioner:
Who are the gentlemen on this Committee?
22251. (The Attorney-General.) I wanted the names. (To the witness.) Have you the names?
- I have them here.
22252. Will you let us have them?
- Mr. Archibald Denny, Chairman, Mr. James Bain, Mr. Henry Robert Champness, Mr. George burton Hunter, Mr. Summers Hunter, Mr. J. Foster King, Mr. Andrew Laing, Mr. W. J. Luke, Mr. S. P. J. Thearle and Professor John Joseph Welch.
22253. (The Commissioner.) Are there any terms of reference?
- Yes, My Lord, they are quite short. Shall I read them?
22254. Yes, let me hear what they are?
- "To be a Committee to advise the Board of Trade, in the interests of safety of life, - (1.) As to what, in their opinion, would constitute efficient subdivision with regard to each of the classes of vessels included in the Rules for Life-Saving Appliances made by the Board of Trade under section 427 of the merchant Shipping Act, 1894, having due regard to the nature of the service in which they are respectively engaged. (2.) Whether independently of the foregoing the Committee desire to make any recommendations with reference to the subdivisions of vessels already built, or of new vessels, which would in their opinion, contribute to the safety of life at sea."
22255. There is nothing there that will cover the question of lifeboats?
- No, they are not mentioned.
The Attorney-General:
I do not think it was meant to cover that.
The Commissioner:
The submission only relates to questions affecting the construction of the ship.
The Attorney-General:
That is right. I am dealing with bulkheads now. What I wanted to see was who were the members of the Committee which reported in 1891. That was the Committee appointed by the President of the Board of Trade to report upon the spacing and construction of watertight bulkheads in ships of the mercantile marine. The President was Sir Michael Hicks Beach, now Lord St. Aldwyn, and the gentlemen appointed were Sir Edward Harland, Mr. James Anderson, Professor Philip Jenkins, Mr. Alexander Kirk, Mr. James Laing, and Mr. Thomas B. Roydson. There is this passage: - "We have shown some appreciation of the importance of efficient subdivision of ships in Class 1, Division A. paragraph G of these Rules." That Rule there referred to is what is Rule 12. "But we consider it our duty to further express our sense of the importance of the question and to recommend that it should be investigated by a Committee of duly qualified persons, the subject as a whole having been held to be outside the scope of the reference to this Committee."
22256. (The Commissioner.) Was it ever investigated by a Committee?
- The investigation was made by Sir Edward Harland's Committee, the Committee of which the names have been just read to you by the Attorney-General.
Sir Robert Finlay:
What was the passage you just read, Mr. Attorney?
The Attorney-General:
I thought I read a passage from the Committee's Report, but I see what the mistake is, My Lord. That which I just read is not Sir Edward Harland's Committee's Report but of a committee which sat earlier. It was in consequence evidently of that that this committee which sat in 1890 and reported in 1891 was appointed.
The Commissioner:
Now I think I understand.
The Attorney-General:
That is how it is. I see what happened now. I am coming now to the one over which Sir Edward Harland presided.
The Commissioner:
What were the terms of submission to that other committee.
22257. (The Attorney-General.) I am going to see how far it is material, My Lord. It deals altogether with the subdivision of a ship into watertight departments. I do not know whether you have it.
The Witness:
I can tell you quite shortly what the position was. First of all came the Life-Saving Appliances Committee of which Mr. Thomas Ismay was Chairman. That was based upon the recommendations of Lord Charles Beresford's Committee in the House of Commons and made law by the act of 1888, and in that Report is what the Attorney-General has read: "We have shown some appreciation" and so on. Then in order to determine what should be the standard for the bulkheads, Sir Edward Harland's Bulkheads Committee was appointed. That is exactly the sequence of events and you read the names of that committee, Mr. Attorney.
22258. (The Attorney-General.) Yes I read them. The only thing that occurs to me about it is it does not seem to be confined to the Rule, although of course, in order to give effect to it you would have to ascertain what are efficient watertight compartments, and consequently the standard that had to be set up was inquired into by this Committee so as to give effect to Rule 12?
- That is it exactly. Sir Edward Harland's Committee reported in 1890.
22259. They were appointed on the 7th March, 1890. Do you say they reported in 1890. I thought it was in 1891?
- I think it was 1890, speaking from memory.
22260. I do not think so, but it does not matter. The Report is rather long, My Lord, but I am afraid I must read it.
The Commissioner:
Are you going to read the whole of it?
The Attorney-General:
No. I think what would be far better is that I should read it and summarise it.
The Commissioner:
I think so too.
The Attorney-General:
It is too long to read. I thought we had a summary of it, but apparently we have not.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Would it not be better if it were put on the notes without being read here; it would be very convenient for reference afterwards.
The Attorney-General:
I have no objection, but it is very long. I will read the recommendation, and then we can have the rest on the note, and if there is anything else in it I can refer to it.
Sir Robert Finlay:
There are only four pages.
(The recommendation was read by the Attorney-General.)
The following is the Reference, Report, and Recommendation: -
SUBMITTED.
Report - Life-Saving Appliances Committee to the Board of Trade.
Report - Bulkheads Committee to the Board of Trade.
22261. (The Attorney-General.) The effect of that is this. The Committee thought, having regard to the great additional safeguard when the subdivision which they had recommended had taken place, that a greater inducement should be offered than existed under Rule 12 of the Life-Saving Appliance Rules which exempted such a vessel, with efficient watertight compartments to the extent of one-half of the additional boats and rafts which were required. This Committee seemed to have thought that there should be a greater inducement even than that, because they thought it was so much more important to have efficient bulkheads than it was boats, and that you could therefore exempt them from providing further boats if they made the subdivision of the ship into watertight compartments more efficient. That is what it amounts to?
The Witness:
That is it.
The Commissioner:
Pursuing the policy of reducing the boats in consideration of the increase of the watertight compartments.
The Attorney-General:
Quite; and that is the position as the result of the Committee appointed in 1890. From that time no other Committee has sat with regard to this matter until one was appointed, I think, in April, 1911.
The Commissioner:
And that Committee's Report was not acted on?
The Attorney-General:
It has not been acted upon.
The Commissioner:
It has not been acted upon?
The Attorney-General:
That is so up to now.
The Commissioner:
It was made in 1901, was it not?
The Attorney-General:
No, 1911.
The Commissioner:
I beg your pardon.
The Attorney-General:
Is your Lordship speaking of the last Committee, or of this one of 1890?
The Commissioner:
I really do not know, but I am speaking of the recommendations which you have just read to me.
The Attorney-General:
Those are the recommendations of the Committee appointed in 1890.
The Commissioner:
Have they ever been acted upon?
The Attorney-General:
No, there has been no further exemption granted.
The Commissioner:
They advised a further exemption which would have necessitated an alteration of Rule 12.
The Attorney-General:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
But although they made these recommendations nothing has been done.
The Attorney-General:
I think that is right.
22262. (The Commissioner.) Is that right, Sir Walter?
The Witness:
That is quite right; you have put it exactly, My Lord. The Board of Trade did not adopt the recommendation.
The Attorney-General:
What it amounts to is this, that although they recommended that the additional lifeboats required should be dispensed with if you had efficient watertight compartments the Rule as it stands continued, and as it then existed, that is to say that no alteration was made in it.
The Commissioner:
Then so far as the recommendation of the Committee is concerned it need never have been made. It had no effect.
The Attorney-General:
I think it had.
22263. (The Commissioner.) What effect had it?
The Witness:
The Board of Trade were not satisfied as to what constituted a watertight compartment or bulkheaded ship, efficiently bulkheaded, and so they referred to this Committee to say what was an efficiently bulkheaded ship, so that they might be exempted from the additional life-saving appliances referred to in Rule 12; and this Committee gave them the advice and they adopted it. But it went further. These recommendations went beyond it. They said, "You shall do away with the whole of the deduction allowed for life-saving appliances instead of one-half."
The Commissioner:
I did not understand that.
22264. (The Attorney-General.) No, not quite; the whole of the additional ones.
The Witness:
Yes, you are right, "More liberal deduction." I think the expression in that report was -
22265. They dealt with a number of other matters?
- Yes.
22266. In connection with bulkheads?
- Quite.
22267. But as to this particular recommendation at paragraph 8, My Lord, is right in saying that that was not followed?
- That is quite right.
The Attorney-General:
That is what my Lord asked you.
The Commissioner:
That is all I meant, that so far as that recommendation goes it might as well never have been made because nothing was done upon it.
The Attorney-General:
That is right.
(The Witness withdrew.)
