British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry
Day 22
Testimony of Sir Walter J. Howell, cont.
The Commissioner:
It would be short by the difference between 11,000 and 14,000.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, there would have been accommodation for about 300 persons more.
Sir Robert Finlay:
But that additional accommodation, 6,225, which my friend has referred to, would not be required, having regard to the watertight compartments under the recommendation of the Committee, on application to the Board of Trade.
The Attorney-General:
I agree.
The Commissioner:
So that, I think, as Mr. Carlisle said, it comes back again to the same thing.
The Attorney-General:
I think so.
The Commissioner:
If you take into consideration the sufficient watertight bulkheads or compartments to satisfy the Board of Trade.
Sir Robert Finlay:
The obvious intention of the report was that the provision of watertight bulkheads should be encouraged by allowing a dispensation from the additional boats.
The Attorney-General:
I agree.
The Commissioner:
This correspondence shows that, I think.
Sir Robert Finlay:
And the comparison is really between the 8,300 cubic feet which are required
and the 11,325 cubic feet which the "Titanic" had. It comes back to what was said in the first instance.
The Commissioner:
Just allow me to read something which may explain or afford an answer to a question which I put as to why the White Star Line stopped at 1,178 in finding accommodation for the people on board. The "Titanic's" boats could carry 1,178. The suggestions of the advisory committee would necessitate boats to carry 1,452. That is what you said just now.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, quite right.
The Commissioner:
If the Board of Trade's approval as to subdivision were obtained and one-half the additional boats excluded, the number would be reduced to 1,141, and the White Star Line provided accommodation for 1,178, that is to say, a little above the total number required.
Sir Robert Finlay:
That is under the old Rule - under the Rules as they existed unmodified by the recommendations of the advisory committee.
The Commissioner:
No, that is not at all what I mean. What I mean is that the boats provided upon the "Titanic" complied with the recommendations of this Advisory committee, the sub-Committee.
The Attorney-General:
I think probably my friend and I are in agreement upon it. What we are venturing not to agree with in what your Lordship said is in taking the half of the 8,300 in order to give you that total of 11,000 odd. That you only do under Rule 12 of the old Rules. If, as Sir Robert Finlay says quite rightly, you adopt the Committee's recommendation, as you do for your figure of 8,300, and if you assume that the "Titanic" had applied for exemption because of its efficient watertight compartments, then following out still the recommendation of the Committee you would exempt them from all additional craft, and therefore you would get back to the 8,300.
The Commissioner:
Yes, you would.
Sir Robert Finlay:
That is right.
The Commissioner:
But apparently they had not adopted that.
The Attorney-General:
They had not. That is right. And, of course, if the "Titanic" did not apply, then she had to provide boat accommodation for a capacity of 14,525 feet. I think this recommendation of the Committee is the first time, so far as I can trace in the very numerous documents I have had before me, that the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee had recommended that there should be a total exemption from the requirements for the additional craft if efficient watertight compartments were provided, and also provided that there is a proper wireless telegraphy apparatus. So that the direction of the Committee apparently in 1911 was still more for less requirements for boats if you have both the proper wireless telegraphy apparatus and efficient watertight compartments. That is the position, I think.
The Commissioner:
Of course, the great object I suppose must be to reach that condition of things which will render recourse to lifeboats quite unnecessary.
The Attorney-General:
That is it.
The Commissioner:
That is what you strive for.
The Attorney-General:
And one has always to bear in mind the enormous importance of wireless telegraphy in that connection, because if you can manage to keep your vessel afloat for a few hours, and particularly if you are on a track, as these Atlantic vessels are, you then can communicate with all other vessels on the track, and there is every chance of passengers being saved straight from the vessel by the boats which are provided. That is, no doubt, what the advisory committee had in mind, and that they had to compare with the question of hampering the boats and encumbering the decks by the provision of many more boats and davits. Those are some of the balancing considerations, and the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee took the view which your Lordship has before you.
Sir Robert Finlay:
There is also the possibility of fire to be considered as a reason for lifeboats.
The Attorney-General:
Certainly, but I think the same consideration would apply. At first sight it looks as if, if there was a fire, there must be accommodation for all the passengers at once, and that undoubtedly is a very serious question to consider. But that brings us to the matter again, to the other considerations which do not apply to collisions.
Sir Robert Finlay:
The question is what is reasonably practicable. If it were carried to the extreme there would be no ships.
The Commissioner:
It always comes back to that. The difficulty one has with a statement of that kind is to say what is reasonable.
Sir Robert Finlay:
It would realise the dream of the poet of an oarless sea.
The Attorney-General:
I propose now to give your Lordship a short statement, with the assistance of Sir Walter Howell, as to the requirements of the law in foreign countries, but your Lordship has brought it upon yourself, because you asked for it, and I think it is rather important you should have it.
The Commissioner:
That was because I thought it would help.
The Attorney-General:
It may.
The Commissioner:
I did so because I had seen it suggested that upon the German boats particularly a larger provision was made for life-saving apparatus than on ours.
The Attorney-General:
That is right. Certainly, according to the legal requirements they would have to provide more boats than according to our requirements, and it is for that reason I will give them to your Lordship. I will do it shortly. It is again a document which will be printed.
The Commissioner:
Do you want Sir Walter Howell for it?
The Attorney-General:
I do not think so. We will have sufficient copies printed to supply all my friends, so that they will be in the same position as everybody else in the case.
Sir Robert Finlay:
We can see it, and if anything arises on it observations can be made or questions put, but it is probably not necessary to read it aloud in Court. It takes a long time. It may be put upon the notes, and anything necessary can be added by way of statement.
The Attorney-General:
It may be necessary to ask some questions about it.
The Commissioner:
You must do it in your own way.
The Attorney-General:
I am not desirous of reading it in Court, and I do not think it is necessary to do that in detail.
The Commissioner:
Have you shown it to Sir Robert Finlay?
The Attorney-General:
No, I have not.
The Commissioner:
Do not you think it would be worthwhile to let him consider it and see if you can agree upon it?
The Attorney-General:
There is no difficulty about that. I do not require his agreement. The documents are all taken from official documents. The difficulty is to present it in a concise form. That is the trouble. There is no controversy about that matter at all. But it is long -
The Commissioner:
I do not want to have a long document put before me on a point of this kind. I should be satisfied if you could tell me whether the German requirements if applied to the "Titanic" would have provided a larger lifeboat accommodation than was provided on the "Titanic."
The Attorney-General:
Yes, undoubtedly. I have told your Lordship that.
The Commissioner:
Yes, you have said that.
The Attorney-General:
If you are satisfied with that, of course it is very short.
The Commissioner:
I am not sure that I need anything more, because I should probably come to the conclusion that if on the German boats a larger accommodation is provided, it is practicable to do it, that is to say, that it does not make the boat tender, it does not unduly encumber the deck, and that the accommodation is an advantage and not a disadvantage.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I think the figures with regard to these two boats, the "President Lincoln" and the "President Grant," were handed in whilst Mr. Wilding was in the box. I think the result arrived at is that the German requirements would have been slightly in excess of what was on board the "Titanic."
The Attorney-General:
I do not agree with that at all.
The Commissioner:
I daresay you can give it to me in percentage.
Mr. Maurice Hill:
I worked them out the other day, but I cannot find my note. My recollection is that one of the "President" ships had boat accommodation equivalent to 36 percent of the total passengers that could be carried, the other 38 percent, and the "Titanic" had 33 percent. I will work it out again.
The Commissioner:
33, 36, and 38.
Mr. Maurice Hill:
That is my recollection.
The Commissioner:
The two larger ones being the Germans?
Mr. Maurice Hill:
Yes.
The Attorney-General:
There is one important factor with regard to this. We may be dealing with two different things. As I understand it, My friends are dealing with facts. I was not. It is important we should get it clear, because I think there is a distinction. I was calling your Lordship's attention to what the requirements are, not the number in fact carried, but what the requirements are according to the German scale. They may not be the same thing.
Sir Robert Finlay:
That is what we were dealing with.
Mr. Maurice Hill:
The figures I dealt with were the figures given the other day, which I think were the total number for which boat accommodation was required on board German ships compared with the total number of passengers and crew which could be carried on those German ships.
The Attorney-General:
But that is a different thing from what you said. If that is what you mean, then I know where we are. But in answer to my question it was said that that was the number which was in fact carried. At any rate, so long as we know where we are, that is all right. We only want to be quite clear. I wanted to give your Lordship the requirements according to the German law. I think it is a matter that wants looking into, because the figures worked out by my friends do not agree with my view at all of the German requirements.
The Commissioner:
That is why I suggested you should compare your statement with that of Sir Robert Finlay.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I am certain what my friend has in his statement will be accurate. It has been carefully prepared officially. It may require possibly supplementing; but I do suggest that it would be very unedifying to have read out this very long document.
The Attorney-General:
Nobody is suggesting that it should be read out. We are not upon that at all. What I am upon now is this - I have agreed entirely with what you said with regard to that -
Sir Robert Finlay:
I beg your pardon.
The Attorney-General:
What I am dealing with is what my Lord said, because I was doing this in consequence of a statement which I made earlier in the case, when your Lordship said you would like evidence about it, and I said we would give it. In consequence of that somebody at the Board of Trade has prepared a memorandum giving the history with regard to various countries. Your Lordship says you do not require that particularly if it is right to say that the requirements according to the German scale are sufficiently large to provide boat accommodation to carry all the passengers and crew on the "Titanic."
The Commissioner:
I did not quite say that. What I meant was this. I want to know what are the German requirements with reference to the number carried in the ship, the requirements as to lifeboat accommodation: I want to compare them with the English requirements, and see what the difference in percentage is. I understand Mr. Maurice Hill to tell me that the percentage in the "Titanic" would be 33 percent, the percentage in one of the two German boats 36 percent, and in the other 38 percent.
The Attorney-General:
Does my friend mean by that that according to the requirements of the German law the boats would have accommodated 36 percent and 38 percent of the human life on board the vessel?
The Commissioner:
No.
Mr. Maurice Hill:
The maximum human life which according to the German law could be carried on the vessel.
The Commissioner:
That is what I understand. It may be the figures are wrong, but, if the figures are right, then I think I have sufficient information.
Mr. Maurice Hill:
I am going to check my arithmetic, because I did it somewhat hurriedly, and it may be wrong.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I think it would be convenient that this general statement with regard to the laws of foreign countries and requirements should be handed in. It is not necessary to read it, but it may be convenient to refer to it, and it is highly desirable that when a memorandum of this kind has been drawn up giving information it should be available for future use.
22496. (The Attorney-General.) There is no difficulty about it; it can be done. (To the witness.) I do not know whether you have made a calculation or whether anybody at the Board of Trade has made this calculation of the number of boats which would have been required according to German requirements for the "Titanic"?
- No, I have not had a comparison of that made, but I have the particulars about the large German ships.
Sir Robert Finlay:
At page 538 of the Notes your Lordship will find a statement with regard to the "President Lincoln" and the "President Grant," and a Note with regard to the British Board of Trade requirements, the American law requirements, and the German law requirements. The Note is what is most immediately in point in regard to your Lordship's question. "The British Board of Trade require 9,625 cubic feet; the American law requires 11,520 cubic feet; and the German law requires 13,343 cubic feet" of boat accommodation in each vessel.
The Commissioner:
There is a difference there of 50 percent.
The Attorney-General:
Yes; I cannot understand my friend's figures. However, we shall not get any further by discussing it now, but what we must do is to calculate them and agree upon them, and then we will give your Lordship a tabulated statement which has been agreed between us with regard to it.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
Who was it who produced those statistics?
Sir Robert Finlay:
Mr. Wilding, My Lord. It was a statement handed in while Mr. Wilding was in the box. Mr. Laing says at Question 20887: "It is the particulars of the 'President Lincoln' and the 'President Grant' which Mr. Wilding told us about; and he has tabulated on a piece of paper the British Board of Trade requirements, the American requirements and the German requirements. (The Commissioner.) I should like to see it," and it was handed in.
The Commissioner:
I notice in the two German boats to which reference was made, there is a very large proportion of collapsible boat accommodation.
22497. (The Attorney-General.) Yes. I am not sure that is the way to get at it; it certainly is not the most reliable. We have got the requirements, and you have to calculate from those requirements what a vessel with a tonnage of 46,000 tons would have to carry in boating accommodation. I make it a very big number of boats indeed, far more than has been mentioned, and I am anxious to have it right. (To the witness.) Will you tell me, Sir Walter, have you yourself, or somebody in the Board of Trade, Made the calculations on the basis of the German requirements?
- What the German requirements would have been for the "Titanic"? No, we have not.
22498. I have done it, but what I want to know is can you tell me whether in fact the German liners carry boats, speaking generally, of the number required according to the German law?
- No, I cannot say.
Sir Robert Finlay:
It is extremely important to know what the practice is.
The Attorney-General:
And that is why I was drawing the distinction between the statement of requirements and facts.
The Commissioner:
I quite appreciate that. That is why you criticise Mr. Maurice Hill.
The Attorney-General:
Yes.
(After a short adjournment.)
The Attorney-General:
My Lord, I have now got the minute from the Board of Trade, which I will read.
The Commissioner:
You mean the minute of the 4th of April, 1912?
22499. (The Attorney-General.) Yes. The minute of the 4th of April, of Sir Walter Howell's is: "I agree to the action proposed." Then there is a note of Captain Young's of the 28th of March, and there is also a note of G. E. B. That is Mr. Baker. (To the witness.) Mr. Baker is your principal clerk?
- In the Marine Department.
22500. You have looked at this, I think?
- Yes.
22501. Is this what you referred to when you said you gave directions on April 4th for that letter which was subsequently sent on April 16th?
- Yes.
22502. Was any other direction than that given before the letter of April 16th was sent?
- No direction whatever.
22503. So that the letter of April 16th, according to that, would be carrying out the directions which you had given on April 4th?
- Precisely.
22504. Is that how it stands?
- That is exactly how it stands.
22505. So that it would follow from that that when the letter was sent on April 16th no alteration was made in that letter in consequence of the loss of the "Titanic"?
- Not the slightest alteration.
22506. It was simply carrying out what had been directed on April 4th?
- Exactly.
22507. And nothing else?
- And nothing else.
22508. Then, as I read to my Lord, there is a letter on April 20th, which does refer to the loss of the "Titanic"?
- Exactly.
22509. And is that the first letter there is, and the first reference in any way to the loss of the "Titanic"?
- Quite.
22510. Would the letter of 16th April be a letter drafted in accordance with the directions which had been given which would appear on the minute?
- Exactly.
22511. Will you just look at this? (A document was handed to the witness.) You have a copy of the minute in front of you?
- I have.
22512. I see there is a draft there of Mr. Baker's?
- A minute of a draft.
22513. A minute of a draft. What is the date of that?
- 1st February.
22514. You have the document in front of you. Then there is a note, is there not, of Captain Young - a memorandum?
- It is referred to Captain Young before it comes to me.
22515. Let us just understand the steps. On that minute there is first of all the minute of a draft by Mr. Baker?
- Quite.
22516. That is the 1st of February?
- The 1st of February.
22517. Then after that what happened?
- That is referred to Captain Young and to me.
22518. But first of all referred to Captain Young?
- First of all, referred to Captain Young.
22519. Then what does Captain Young do on that?
- He proceeds to consider it, and on the 30th March he says, "Please see my remarks herewith."
22520. Are those remarks there and are they dated the 28th of March?
- The 28th of December.
22521. No, no - look - The 28th of March, I beg your pardon.
22522. Then that comes before you with his minute and the remarks attached?
- Quite.
22523. You go through it?
- Yes.
22524. And then you agree with it?
- Yes.
22525. In the note which I have it is "I agree to the action proposed" - It came on to him on the 30th March, and on the 4th April I put, "I agree to the action proposed."
22526. Then the letter which is sent is in accordance with the draft, and the note by captain Young?
- Precisely.
The Commissioner:
To sum it all up, the letter of the 16th April is based upon data collected before the "Titanic" sank.
22527. (The Attorney-General.) Quite, and made with the aid and written in pursuance of directions given by Sir Walter on the 4th April. (To the witness.) That is how it stands?
- That is exactly how it stands.
The Attorney-General:
Then the subsequent correspondence I have read to your Lordship - you see how it stands - when attention is called to the loss of the "Titanic" by the letter of the 20th.
The Commissioner:
The letter of the 20th is not of much significance.
The Attorney-General:
No, My Lord.
The Commissioner:
It was the letter of the 16th. I wanted the suspicion, if there were any, cleared away that that letter was written in consequence of the loss of the "Titanic." If this Witness is right, it is obvious that it was not.
The Attorney-General:
The only importance of the letter of the 20th, if it is of importance, is that that first takes up the point of the loss of the "Titanic." I think it right to state, My Lord, with reference to the point we were discussing before with regard to German requirements - that they should be gone into more carefully and agreed between us, so that your Lordship might have the exact calculation according to the German requirements of the boats that the "Titanic" would have had to provide - that so far as I can follow from the "President Grant" and "President Lincoln," and the boats which were provided by the "President Grant" and the "President Lincoln," in fact, the boating accommodation was not up to the scale which is required by the German Rules. I do not know what the reason may be. Whether they have any power to deal with it, I cannot tell. It is important to bear that in mind, and that is why I drew the distinction between the facts stated and the requirements according to the scale.
Sir Robert Finlay:
With reference to what the Attorney-General has just said, the difference between my friend Mr. Maurice Hill's calculation and the note as to the requirements - your Lordship pointed out how different the percentage would be - would be explained if the boating accommodation which in fact was required for the "President Lincoln" and the "President Grant" was less than the boating accommodation apparently required by the Rules. Then, of course, the discrepancy to which your Lordship called attention between the apparent requirements of the Board of Trade Rules and the German Rules, and the percentage worked out by my friend Mr. Maurice Hill, which was based upon the actual boating of the "Titanic," and these two vessels - that disappears.
The Attorney-General:
That explains what I could not follow in the percentages which my friend Mr. Hill was giving.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I daresay we shall be able to get possibly some information of whether there is any ground for supposing that in practice the German requirements are not always insisted upon.
The Attorney-General:
It is rather difficult to get that.
The Commissioner:
I daresay it is. According to the statement of the Attorney-General, whether they are insisted upon or not, they are not complied with.
The Attorney-General:
That is what I find by reference to the "President Grant" and the "President Lincoln," which are the two instances we have before us.
The Commissioner:
According to his statement, the requirements are one thing and the compliance with them quite a different thing.
22528. (The Attorney-General.) It may be - we shall have to look into it and see - that there is some dispensing power in regard to the German Regulations and that possibly that is the explanation of it - that although it does not comply with the scale, nevertheless it may be in compliance with the German law as administered. (To the witness.) I would like to ask you this. With reference both to the American and the German Rules which you have put before us, am I right in this, that neither the American nor the German Rules provide that there should be boating accommodation for all on board?
- That is quite right.
22529. And, further, that both of them are based on gross tonnage?
- Quite right.
22530. Can you tell me - I am asking this question because I think it will save your Lordship going through so many documents - what is the case with reference to other countries? Take, for example, France. How do the Rules of France compare with our own requirements of boats?
- I think they are reasonably approximate to our own. I think I may say that of most of the other countries. Some are a little more and some a little less, but they are reasonably approximate to our own.
The Attorney-General:
It does not seem to me, subject to anything that your Lordship may desire, that it is useful to compare them unless there is a real substantial difference between them.
22531. (The Commissioner.) As far as I am concerned, I do not want to trouble you with the German Rules.
The Witness:
I have a half-sheet of paper here containing a few particulars which, I think, really crystallise the matter. It will show you all the facts.
22532. (The Attorney-General.) May I see it. (The document was handed to the Attorney-General.) I think this is quite useful, it gives the information in a very compendious form, and unless your Lordship thinks it will not assist you I will have it put on the Notes, so that it will be available to everybody. (The document was handed to the Commissioner.) It is a Table showing the minimum requirements of the Life-saving Appliances Rules of certain foreign countries for a vessel of just over 10,000 tons. (To the witness.) That, if I understand it correctly, only shows the minimum requirements for a vessel of just over 10,000 tons?
- Quite so.
22533. It does not help us as to the requirements for a vessel, say, of 46,000 tons?
- Quite so.
The Commissioner:
I do not see that it is of much value.
22534. (The Attorney-General.) It does not seem to me to be of much value if that is all it shows - a vessel of just over 10,000 tons?
- My point is that we have accepted that as reasonably approximate to our own.
22535. That is not the point we are on. We may take that, I think, quite compendiously as showing that the requirements of Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United States, for vessels of just over 10,000 tons, are approximately the same as our own?
- Yes, and for all of those below.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, I know, but we are not concerned with that. If that is all that we shall get out of this table I do not think I will encumber the Note with it.
The Commissioner:
I do not think it is worth encumbering the Note with it.
22536. (The Attorney-General.) Nor do I. (To the witness.) There is one other matter I wanted to ask you about, and that is with reference to wireless telegraphy. Your Lordship will remember there is a question with regard to that before you. Has there been an inter-departmental discussion between the Board of Trade and the Post Office as to the action to be taken?
- Yes, there has.
22537. And the question of how far wireless telegraphy should be made compulsory, and under what conditions and safeguards, is at present under consideration, is it not?
- Yes.
The Attorney-General:
Then subject, My Lord, to this question of the agreement between us, with which I do not think it is necessary to trouble sir Walter, I think that is all I want to ask him.
The Commissioner:
Mr. Scanlan, before you begin to examine the witness, could you tell me in a few words first of all whether you are going to make or suggest any charges of neglect against the Board of Trade? Can you tell me that first?
Mr. Scanlan:
No, there is no specific charge of neglect. I think there appears on the evidence matter on which a comment of neglect could very properly be made to your Lordship, and I purpose asking a few questions dealing with that.
The Commissioner:
I will tell you why I am asking you. Both you and Mr. Edwards have been of great use to me in putting your points to the witnesses, and it would help me to understand your view of the conduct of the Board of Trade if before you examine this Witness and the others you could tell me whether there are any specific acts - if that is the right word - of neglect that you suggest against the Board of Trade.
Mr. Scanlan:
Yes, My Lord.
The Commissioner:
I ask you the question for this reason. We all know that outside there has been a considerable outcry against the conduct of the Board of Trade, and I am to enquire into the circumstances. I should like to know from you now, if you can tell me, if there is any specific act of neglect - I do not like the expression - that you charge against them?
Mr. Scanlan:
I follow your Lordship. I say that there is a neglect in reference to the life-saving appliances, basing this assertion on the fact that the obligation to make provision for life-saving appliances is imposed not on an Advisory committee but on the Board of Trade itself, and that the Board of Trade, through the years in which the tonnage of ships has been going on increasing, have been negligent, as a Department of State, in not making better regulations, in not bringing the regulations more up to date. Another point is that in the interval, since the advisory committee reported, attention was drawn in the House of Commons, the only place where the responsible executive head of the Board of Trade can be got at, to the importance of providing life-saving appliances commensurate with the number of passengers carried, as opposed to provisions based on tonnage. And, again, we say that the Board of Trade Regulations with respect to the manning of ships are defective; in point of fact, that when a former President presided at a Commission especially appointed to enquire into this, he had the importance of a manning scale brought under his notice, and he stated that the Department already had power to impose a manning scale under the provisions of the act of 1906. I am going to make this point, My Lord, that notwithstanding the powers which the board have, and which a former President of the Board of Trade credited his Department with having, the manning scale is defective. For instance, if the "Titanic" had been allowed to go to sea with what the Board of Trade Department looks upon as the adequate, the maximum requirements which they had designated for any ship up to the present, she would have had not half of the crew which she carried. Then another point which I think it is worthwhile to raise, and which I intend to put to Sir Walter Howell, is this: In a Commission appointed by the Government for the Board of Trade in 1896 the question of manning and deficiency of the crew was specially considered, and one of the recommendations of that Commission in regard to the engine department or for firemen is that: "A candidate for the rating of fireman should be 18 years of age or over and have had six months' service as trimmer in a steamer," and this recommendation of their own Committee has been ignored.
The Commissioner:
What sort of a Committee was that - A Departmental Committee?
Mr. Scanlan:
This, My Lord, I understand, is Sir Edward Reed's Committee. It is the Committee appointed by the Board of Trade to enquire into the manning of British Merchant Ships. The names of the Commissioners are: The Right. Hon. Mr. Mundella, Sir e. J. Reed, the Right Hon. A.B. Forward, Sir Francis Evans, Mr. Havelock Wilson -
The Commissioner:
That is sufficient. The Committee obviously comprised people who were not officially connected with the Board of Trade at all.
Mr. Scanlan:
That is so, My Lord.
The Commissioner:
You appear to me to be a little inconsistent. You began by making a charge against the Board of Trade, as I understand, of this kind, that they called in aid advisory committees, whereas they ought to act upon their own judgment.
Mr. Scanlan:
Of course, I say that, and I think it is a tenable, general proposition.
The Commissioner:
And then you go on to say - it may be logical or reconcilable - that you complain that they did not act upon the advice of the advisory committees.
Continued >
