British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry
Day 22
Testimony of Sir Walter J. Howell, cont.
22356. That is, the Rules made by the Board of Trade under section 427 of the merchant Shipping Act, 1894?
- Yes.
22357. And the alterations that are made are not material for the purpose of the point we are considering, are they?
- Not in the least; they were quite minor alterations.
22358. I only want to get to the point we are considering. It is useless to give his Lordship all the documents leading up to this. On page 17 of this book we get to the table which is actually in force at the present moment?
- Yes.
22359. That is what we are concerned with, and that is the table which came into force on the 1st June, 1894?
- No, that only went up to 9,000 tons. The present one goes up to 10,000 and upwards.
22360. I do not think our minds are quite on the same point. The Rules that came into force on the 1st June, 1894, are the scale which is at present in force?
- Yes.
22361. That is the one at page 17?
- That is the one at page 17.
22362. That is what I was putting to you?
- I thought you said the originals.
No; I purposely did not; I said the 1st June, 1894.
The Commissioner:
But nevertheless, the answer is a useful one.
22363-4. (The Attorney-General.) I agree; but until one understands it, it is useless proceeding with it. (To the witness.) I know what you are referring to, but I want to get, first of all, clearly before my Lord that the scale which is now in force is the scale which has been in force since the 1st June, 1894?
- That is exactly right.
22365. That is the scale you find at page 17?
- That is exactly so.
22366. But that was not the same scale as had been in force before?
- That is quite so.
The Attorney-General:
That is it.
The Commissioner:
What was the scale?
22367. (The Attorney-General - To the witness.) Is the alteration in the scale to 10,000 and upwards?
- That is the sole alteration.
22368. So that before the 1st June, 1894, Rules you had not the scale applying to vessels of 10,000 tons and upwards; you stopped apparently at 9,000 and upwards?
- Yes, 9,000 and upwards.
22369. So that it is really the first line in the scale which is new by this?
- That is quite right.
The Commissioner:
Now, tell me this: When did the previous scale, which finished at 9,000, come into operation?
22370. (The Attorney-General.) 1890. (To the witness.) That is right, is it not?
- Yes, in 1890.
The Commissioner:
Very well. In 1890 you had a scale that provided for the lifeboat accommodation on ships up to 9,000 and upwards, as I understand.
The Attorney-General:
Yes.
22371. (The Commissioner - To the witness.) It was thought worthwhile, on the 1st June, 1894, to alter that scale by including it in ships of 10,000 and upwards?
- Quite so.
22372. That is to say, in a period of four years you altered it. This present scale has been in existence 18 years. Now, why has it never been altered?
- I can only just indicate to your Lordship. That will be explained by the professional Officers, but I will indicate it to your Lordship. At the time when the Rules were made, on the 1st June, 1894, the largest ship complete was the "Lucania," 12,952 tons, certified to carry 1,857 passengers and crew.
The Attorney-General:
I think I will ask the question first, and then I will direct his mind to the questions your Lordship is putting.
The Commissioner:
I am jumping a little too soon, I think.
22373. (The Attorney-General.) It will direct his mind more to the answer you want. When those Rules came into force on the 1st June, 1894, was the largest ship afloat the "Lucania," a ship of 12,952 tons, and certified to carry 1,857 passengers and crew?
- Yes.
22374. According to these Rules, which were framed to come into force on the 1st June, 1894, the table was extended from 9,000 and upwards to 10,000 and upwards; but even that 10,000 tons apparently was put upon 3,000 tons short of the "Lucania's" gross tonnage?
- Yes.
22375. So that if I follow correctly what was done there, for some reason there was an addition to the scale and an increased number of boats required for vessels of 10,000 tons and upwards, but still not a scale which dealt with a vessel of 13,000 tons, except in so far as it is covered by the requirement as to 10,000 and upwards?
- Quite.
22376. When you once got to 10,000 tons and upwards it did not matter how much the increase was apparently, you still only had to carry according to the Board of Trade Regulations the 16 boats under davits?
- Yes, that is quite so. But you have not quite got my point. My point is that it was quite clear that the scale was intended to include the "Lucania," because she was in existence and already launched, and her tonnage was 12,952, so that that vessel was in existence when the Rules for 10,000 and upwards were laid down.
22377. That I think you do make clear. Whatever may be thought of it, that is quite clear, that although you had a vessel of 13,000 tons in existence at the time they passed these Rules, they did not mean to make a scale which would extend to that, but would be satisfied if that vessel complied with the scale for one of 10,000 tons and upwards?
- Yes, that is exactly what I mean.
22378. But it still does not answer the question which my Lord put to you, which we want to know something about, if you can help us, as to why it was that it was thought worthwhile to alter the scale by adding this line "10,000 and upwards"?
- In order to include ships similar to the "Lucania."
The Attorney-General:
Well, it made a small demand upon a vessel like the "Lucania."
The Commissioner:
It would have been included in the 9,000 and upwards equally.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, but she would have to find more boats.
The Commissioner:
There may be no significance in it, I do not know, but the "Lucania" was practically a boat of 13,000 tons.
The Attorney-General:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
Very well. Its amended scale which included the words "10,000 and upwards," was, according to the witness, Made in view of the fact that the "Lucania" was a boat of 13,000 tons.
The Attorney-General:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
Now the provision in the scale before it was altered was that as far as boats of 9,000 and upwards went they were to carry 14 boats. You have a boat then made which is more than one-third bigger - nearly half as big again - and yet the increase for the number of boats in the "Lucania" would only be two, from 14 to 16.
The Attorney-General:
That is it.
22379. (The Commissioner.) It may be that it is right, but it appears to me that it is wrong. I am not poking fun at it at all. It may he that it is not wrong, but it looks wrong.
The Witness:
At any rate, it shows they made some increase there.
22380. (The Attorney-General.) I will tell you what it shows. If I may say so respectfully, what my Lord says is really the crux of the criticism to be directed to this scale?
- I am quite aware of that, and that will be dealt with by the professional Officers.
The Attorney-General:
We want to understand it.
22381. (The Commissioner.) You have not answered my question, you pushed it off on to somebody else, who is not in the witness-box, and that is: Why, having thought it worthwhile to make one alteration in the course of four years, did it never occur to anybody in the next 18 years to make any alteration?
- That is a question I am not competent to answer.
22382. But I am sure, Sir Walter, that you must have talked about it to somebody in the Board of Trade?
- Oh, yes.
22383. Now, to whom did you talk?
- I talked to the professional Officer of the Marine Department.
22384. And what explanation did he give?
- He said that he did not think the scale required any further alteration.
22385. Why not?
- I have not a very clear recollection of what his reasons were. I would rather he gave them in his own words.
22386. I should have thought it was so important that you would have had?
- No, because conversations were taking place frequently on many things.
22387. The gentleman is here, I understand, and you prefer to leave him to get out of the difficulty?
- I prefer that the professional Officer should answer professional questions.
22388. (The Attorney-General.) To whom are you referring?
- To Sir Alfred Chalmers, the professional adviser of the Board of Trade then.
22389. Whatever the reason may be, the one thing that is established by this is that at this time, in 1894, when you had not only the "Lucania" but the "Campania" also with a tonnage of just upon 13,000 tons -?
- They were nearly the same tonnage.
22390. The Committee thought that the number of boats required apparently should be the 16 mentioned in the scale?
- Quite so.
The Commissioner:
Can you tell me how this table would be altered? What procedure would have to be adopted for the purpose of altering it?
The Attorney-General:
I think the Board of Trade would do it.
The Commissioner:
Who has the power?
The Attorney-General:
My impression is that the Board of Trade can do it. I think it is an administrative action which they can take at once.
The Commissioner:
It is an Appendix to Rules made by the Board of Trade. If they alter the appendix they alter the Rules. How do they alter their rules?
22391. (The Attorney-General.) I think the Rules are framed, and on the authority of the President are laid before Parliament, and lie on the table for so many days, I think 40 days, and after that they become law. Is not that it?
The Witness:
That is quite right.
The Attorney-General:
Dealing with only the last three years preceding this year. In May, 1909, there is an alteration made in these Rules with reference to motor lifeboats. In April, 1910, there is an alteration made - I will give a reference to it later in more detail, with regard to stowage of boats in board or under davits. In June, 1911, there is another one.
The Commissioner:
I was wondering whether it was some cumbrous procedure.
The Attorney-General:
Oh, no, it is the ordinary procedure of Parliament. When there is a power given by Statute to a Department to make Rules, the Rules lie on the table of the House, and, of course, can be dealt with by an Address to the House if objected to, and if the House does not object then they have the force of Statute within the powers of course conferred by the statute upon the person who has made the Rules.
Sir Robert Finlay:
My friend, Mr. Laing, has had prepared an analysis and a consecutive statement of all that has been done with regard to this, setting out the material sections, and I think it might be of very considerable service if your Lordship would look at it, and your Lordship will say whether it might be convenient that it should be printed. It will be very useful.
The Attorney-General:
I should like to see it before it is dealt with, because I have a print of the same thing. We are having it printed, so that your Lordship should have the whole story.
The Commissioner:
Whether it is from you or Sir Robert is a matter of indifference. It would be of assistance to have it tabulated on one sheet.
The Attorney-General:
We had better look at it, because I think we have a good deal that Sir Robert has not.
The Commissioner:
Mr. Maurice Hill will look at the two, and select, impartially you know, the one which he thinks is the better.
The Attorney-General:
I can say nothing about it, because I have not seen it.
The Commissioner:
You will let me have one or the other.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, and it may be the two may be given. We have one which I think, so far as I know -
The Commissioner:
You naturally think is better than theirs.
The Attorney-General:
No, I do not think it is better, because I have not seen theirs.
Sir Robert Finlay:
My friend has not seen Mr. Laing's work.
The Commissioner:
But he nevertheless thinks his is better.
The Attorney-General:
No, I do not.
The Commissioner:
You have just said so.
The Attorney-General:
No, what I said was I thought it was useful; I did not go further. I certainly should not, without seeing Mr. Laing's. But there is some information which the Board of Trade as a Department has which Mr. Laing cannot have. That is what I meant.
The Commissioner:
The serious point, to my mind, here, and the one which I want to have cleared up, is this. Why did the Board of Trade leave this table which finishes at 10,000 and upwards in existence for 18 years without any revision. That is the point.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, I know the answer.
The Commissioner:
That the shipowners thought the table was not sufficient is obvious, because they themselves provided a considerable number of boats beyond the number mentioned in the table and that must have been because they thought the table was not sufficiently stringent.
22392. (The Attorney-General.) It would be better that the witnesses should give the answer I know what their answer is, and we shall discuss afterwards whether it is a good one (To the witness.) I will pass somewhat rapidly on, Sir Walter. As far as I understand, between 1894 and 1904 there was no great development in the tonnage of passenger steamers?
- No, I think not.
22393. There was a development in the direction of increasing the tonnage, but no great development. I notice the "Baltic" was built in 1904. She was over 20,000 tons?
- Yes.
22394. There was also the "Celtic," which I see was built in 1901, she was 20,000 tons or more, was she not?
- Yes.
22395. (The Attorney-General.) There was some increase. Your Lordship will see it is an increase undoubtedly from the 13,000 that we have got. It is not quite right to say between 1894 and 1904, I think, to make it right, we had better say between 1894 and 1901 here is no great increase, but from 1901 to 1904 there are several steamers built of over 20,000 tons?
- Yes, those three.
22396. That is how it stands?
- Yes.
22397. (The Commissioner.) I suppose that every ship that is built informs the Board of Trade of the number of lifeboats to be carried?
- Certainly. They have to be to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade.
22398. So that if the Board of Trade is satisfied that a sufficient number of boats are, in fact, carried there is, in a sense, no occasion to alter the table?
- Yes, My Lord.
The Commissioner:
Perhaps you will not assent to that, and I am sure Mr. Scanlan will not.
The Attorney-General:
Your Lordship has in mind the provision with regard to additional boats and rafts that have to be provided. I mean this scale is not exhaustive, as your Lordship knows. If you want to see exactly how it stands you must not only take page 17, but you must take page 6 as well.
The Commissioner:
Yes, I know that.
The Attorney-General:
Because the requisition for the "Titanic" was not 5,500, as the scale would indicate; it was 9,625 cubic feet capacity, and that is arrived at by taking the scale at page 17, which is for vessels of 10,000 tons and upwards, requiring 16 boats of the capacity of 5,500 cubic feet; then you have to go to page 6, paragraph D, and it is under that that you get the requirement for the three-fourths additional cubic capacity in the number of boats and rafts.
The Commissioner:
You had better read it.
The Attorney-General:
"If the boats placed under davits in accordance with the table do not furnish sufficient accommodation for all persons on board, then additional wood, Metal, collapsible, or other boats of approved description (whether placed under davits or otherwise.) or approved life-rafts shall be carried. One of these boats may be a steam launch, but in that case the space occupied by the engines and boilers is not to be included in the estimated cubic capacity of the boat. Subject to the provisions contained in paragraph (f.) of these Rules, such additional boats or rafts shall be of at least such carrying capacity that they and the boats required to be placed under davits by the table provide together in the aggregate in vessels of 5,000 tons gross and upwards, three-fourths, and in vessels of less than 5,000 tons gross, one-half, More than the minimum cubic contents required by column 3 of that table. For this purpose three cubic feet of air case in the life raft is to be estimated as ten cubic feet of internal capacity. Provided always that the rafts will accommodate all the persons for which they are to be certified under the Rules, and also have 3 cubic feet of air case for each person. All such additional boats or rafts shall be placed as conveniently for being available as the ships arrangements admit of having regard to the avoidance of undue encumbrance of the ship's deck, and to the safety of the ship for her voyage." Now, that is the scale that is applicable.
Mr. Scanlan:
Look at the qualification on page 16.
The Attorney-General:
That, of course, we have had. I will read it again.
The Commissioner:
We have had it, but you had better read it again.
22399. (The Attorney-General.) One must bear in mind it does not apply to this particular case, but, of course, it is a general Rule. On page 16 is the one, Rule 12. That is the one we discussed yesterday: "When ships of any class are divided into efficient watertight compartments to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade, they shall only be required to carry additional boats, rafts, and buoyant apparatus of one-half of the capacity required by these Rules, but the exemption shall not extend to lifejackets or similar approved articles of equal buoyancy suitable to be worn on the person." We have the three provisions and to work that out, as I understand it, is this. First of all, if it is a vessel of more than 10,000 tons, you must, in accordance with the scale at page 17, have a minimum of 16 boats with a cubic capacity of 5,500 feet minimum?
- Yes, and those are the boats under davits.
22400. That you must have, but then in addition to that, in accordance with what is provided in the Rules at page 6, there must be a boat accommodation but not necessarily an accommodation under davits, of an addition of three-fourths of the minimum cubic capacity required under the scale at page 17?
- Quite right.
22401. So that would mean that you would have to have not only the 5,500, but in addition you must have three-fourths of 5,500 cubic feet capacity measured in boats; in other words, you would have to have boats with a cubic capacity of 9,625 cubic feet provided on that ship?
- Quite right.
22402. And of the boats making up that cubic capacity of 9,625 cubic feet, 16 at least must be boats placed under davits?
- Quite so.
22403. That is what it comes to?
- Yes.
22404. But if the vessel had applied under Rule 12 on page 16, and the Board of Trade had been satisfied that her subdivision into watertight compartments was efficient and satisfactory, then instead of having to carry additional boats to the extent of three-fourths of the 5,500 cubic feet capacity, should would only have had to carry one-half of that cubic capacity?
- That is quite right.
22405. So that instead of 9,625 cubic feet in boats of that capacity in sum total, she would have had to provide boats with a total capacity of 7,750 cubic feet?
- Quite right.
The Commissioner:
That is absolutely correct, so far as I follow it.
The Attorney-General:
If your Lordship pleases. We have had the evidence. I cannot put my finger on it; but my impression is that the evidence as it stands is that the "Titanic," with the boat accommodation she had, including collapsibles, that is taking the 20 boats, had a capacity for 1,178 persons and a cubic capacity, I think, of 11,325 cubic feet.
Mr. Laing:
That is right.
The Commissioner:
There is no doubt that she complied with the requirements.
The Attorney-General:
And more.
The Commissioner:
And more.
22406. (The Attorney-General.) It may be necessary when we are discussing this question to see exactly how you measure the number of persons to be carried in regard to the cubic capacity of the boats, but that varies to some extent. It does not seem to me that it is at all important with reference to this matter. There are the Rules which deal with it. You may say, speaking approximately, that if you divide by 10 you get the number of persons?
- Yes.
22407. But, of course, there are some in which you may divide by eight, I notice?
- Yes.
22408. I rather think that applies to collapsibles, does it not?
- It does.
22409. That is how it stands, with collapsibles you may divide by eight. It is not unimportant to bear it in mind, having regard to the latter development to which your Lordship's attention will be called. I think that is all I need say about it at present. (To the witness.) Now, I had brought your attention to the 1901 to 1904 period when we had got to the construction of vessels of over 20,000 tons. At that time was the matter considered by the Board of Trade; that is to say, was any consideration given to the necessity of altering the scale by requiring more boats for vessels of greater tonnage?
- Was this in 1904 you are referring to?
22410. Yes. You see what I am directing attention to?
- Yes, the period in 1904. I know the attention of the professional Officer was specially directed to that subject at that time, and as far as I remember what he said to me as the result of conversations was that he was strongly of opinion that the increase of tonnage and accompanying increase of persons carried was counterbalanced by the greater safety of the ships themselves. This greater safety I understood was due, first, to improvements of construction; second, the adoption of regular routes across the Atlantic for the purpose of avoiding collisions with other vessels, and avoiding ice; and, third, somewhat later, the introduction of wireless telegraphy.
22411. Let us pause there for a moment. That means, when this question was considered, there were those three factors to be taken into account. When you speak of improved construction, does that take into account and cover also the subdivision into watertight compartments?
- That is the main point of it, I think.
22412. Then there was further this, that regular routes had been adopted across the North Atlantic out and home?
- Quite.
22413. Which gave greater safety?
- As I understand it, they were laid down for that purpose.
22414. So as to avoid collisions?
- Yes, avoiding collisions with other vessels and with ice.
22415. Then there is the third element which was taken into consideration, and that was the introduction of wireless telegraphy?
- Quite; I understood that those were the main reasons which influenced him.
22416. Which, of course, gave an opportunity of calling for assistance?
- Yes.
22417. Then, was any consideration directed to the number of disasters in the trans-Atlantic passenger trade?
- Oh, yes. I remember the splendid record of safety of life at sea was one of the points to which attention was directed then.
The Commissioner:
I want to correct, and I hope correctly, something that the witness has just said, that the new track was one of the matters taken into consideration in 1904. It is pointed out to me that the new track was adopted in January, 1899, so that one can scarcely say that the new track was of any importance in 1904.
The Attorney-General:
With great respect, I should have thought that it was, because they had had the Rules in existence since 1894. Then, when this development came in the direction of increasing the tonnage of the vessels, they had to see how that compared with the state of things when they passed the Rules in 1894, and then they found, amongst other things, that there was this matter of the tracks.
The Commissioner:
Which had supervened.
22418. (The Attorney-General.) Yes, and that therefore when the increased tonnage arose that was a thing to be taken into account. Of course, I agree nobody suggested it until this came into existence, but in contrasting 1894 and 1904 it does become an element. The figures which you gave me yesterday have shown us what, in fact, were the casualties which had occurred during the years 1892 to 1901, and I suppose that could have been ascertained up to 1904, or very nearly to 1904?
- Oh, yes.
22419. All those matters were taken into consideration?
- Yes, I am quite sure they were.
22420. And as a consequence no alteration was made?
- Yes, that is so.
22421. Was it thought that wireless telegraphy was a very important consideration in determining whether or not you required an extended scale?
- It was certainly one of the things discussed. I think wireless telegraphy really came into practical use in about 1907. I know it was commented on very much in the case of the "Republic," which happened in 1909. It was of the greatest service there, I remember.
22422. The advisory committee was invited in April, 1911, to advise on this very question of the necessity for increasing the requirements under the scale, was it not?
- Quite so.
The Attorney-General:
We have referred to what happened with reference to that, but I am not sure whether your Lordship had it clearly brought before you. Some reference was made to it when we were examining Mr. Carlisle.
The Commissioner:
Yes, I remember.
The Attorney-General:
Of course this is important, because I am now coming to what happened in 1911.
The Commissioner:
You are coming to the document that Mr. Carlisle, among others, signed?
The Attorney-General:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
Apparently, according to his own admission, very foolishly.
The Attorney-General:
In the document that will be printed, your Lordship will have that included, also with the terms of reference. (The document was handed to the Commissioner.) (To the witness.) On the 4th of April, 1911, you, as representing the Board of Trade, wrote to the secretary of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee, by direction of the Board of Trade, asking that the advisory committee should consider certain questions. The one I particularly want to call attention to is this. Questions had been asked in the House of Commons, and this is stated, this is the letter of the 4th of April which precedes: "The board are of the opinion that the table in the appendix to the Rules should be extended upwards in the form indicated in the accompanying scale, so as to provide for vessels of tonnage up to 50,000 tons gross and upwards. It appears to the board that the number of boats and the boat capacity need not necessarily increase in a regular proportion according to the increase in tonnage, and that due regard should be paid to what is reasonable and practicable in passenger steamers exceeding 10,000 tons. The attention of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee is invited to the Rule of the 19th April, 1910, as to the stowage of boats required to be placed under davits, and to the fact that the capacity of the additional boats and/or rafts required by division A, class 1, Clause (d.), of the Rules is governed by the capacity of the boats required to be placed under davits. I am to state that the board would be obliged if the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee would be so good as to suggest in what manner the scale (See accompanying copy.) should be continued upwards, having due regard to the considerations indicated above."
The Commissioner:
That was 1911.
The Attorney-General:
The 4th April, 1911: "I am further to state that the board would be glad to learn whether the advisory committee are of opinion that Rule 12 should or should not be revised so as to exempt altogether from the requirements of additional boats and/or rafts those vessels which are divided into efficient watertight compartments to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade. I am to add that, in considering the questions dealt with in this letter, the constitution of the merchant Shipping Advisory committee should be identical with that of the Committee as recently constituted for the purpose of considering an amendment of the Life-Saving Appliances Rules in connection with the Engelhardt collapsible lifeboat." Now, let us see. The result of that was that the advisory committee which as already stated, came into existence in accordance with the statute of 1888, was asked to consider these questions, and in accordance with the scale which was imposed in that letter.
The Commissioner:
I have got that Report.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, but now I want your Lordship to have the letter of the 4th April.
The Commissioner:
The letter which you have just read?
The Attorney-General:
Yes, which includes the terms of reference and encloses the scale.
The Commissioner:
Is it the letter signed by Mr. Norman Hill?
The Attorney-General:
No. What I have read is a letter from the Board of Trade to the advisory committee which precedes all those, and which suggests or proposes to the advisory committee a new scale.
The Commissioner:
That is the 4th April.
The Attorney-General:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
The one I have is the 4th July.
The Attorney-General:
Yes. I wanted your Lordship to have that before you. This is only for present use; you shall have it all bound up in proper form. May I say, of course those copies which we are having printed will be supplied to all the members of the Court. If you look at that letter you will see that encloses the scale proposed by the Board of Trade: "Minimum number of boats to be placed under davits on vessels of 10,000 tons to 50,000 tons and over." Then it gives the scale. "Gross tonnage" beginning "50,000 and upwards, 45,000 and under 50,000, 40,000 and under 45,000, 35,000 and under 40,000, 30,000 and under 35,000, 25,000 and under 30,000, 20,000 and under 25,000, 15,000 and under 20,000, 12,000 and under 15,000, 10,000 and under 12,000."
The Commissioner:
It is just the sort of table that I suggested it would have been right to have made during the 18 years.
22423. (The Attorney-General.) Yes. Substantially, we may take it, it decreases in 5,000 tons, 30, 25, 20, 15, until you get to vessels of 15,000 and under 20,000 tons, and then from that the gradation is a little less steep; it is from 12,000 tons to 15,000 and 10,000 to 12,000; and then from that, of course, take out the words "and upwards," and it is in accordance with the present scale. Will your Lordship turn over the page of the document I have just handed to you, because that gives us the names of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee, and tells us whom they represented. Sir Norman Hill was nominated by the Shipowners' Parliamentary Committee, as were also Mr. Cuthbert Laws, Mr. Watts, Mr. Raeburn and Mr. Roxburgh, and they all represented shipowners. Sir raymond beck was nominated by Lloyd's and represented underwriters. Mr. Samuel Cross was nominated by the Liverpool Underwriters' Association and also represented underwriters?
- Yes.
22424. Sir Theodore Doxford was nominated by the Institution of Naval Architects and represented shipbuilders, and Dr. Inglis the same?
- Yes.
22425. Captain John Trenery was nominated by the mercantile marine service association and British Shipmasters' and Officers' Protection Association, and represented Masters and Officers. Captain Hampson was nominated by the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, represented by my friend today?
- Yes.
Continued >
