British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry
Day 36
Final Arguments, cont.
The Commissioner:
Apparently the Board of Trade did not move of its own initiative.
The Attorney-General:
I do not think that is quite right. So far as I follow it, they had had the matter under consideration and were considering it at the time this question was put. What they say in this note of the 18th February, 1911, is this: "The Board have under consideration the question of amending the present requirements of the Statutory Rules." There was a question put in February, 1911, but there had been a question put in November, 1910, and that explains, no doubt, why it was they had had it under consideration before this Memorandum is sent out, of the 18th February.
The Commissioner:
Is the question of November, 1910, mentioned in the Memorandum that you handed up to me?
The Attorney-General:
I think not; no, it is not. The reference to the question is at page 5, and that only deals with the question of February, 1911. I will just read what was said there and then I will tell you what happened in November, 1910. On page 5 of the Memorandum it says: "In February, 1911, a question was asked in the House of Commons as to the desirability of revising the Regulations governing the number of lifeboats in passenger vessels, having regard to the increased tonnage of modern ships. The President of the Board of Trade replied that the question of the revision of the Rules was engaging the serious attention of the Board, and that he had decided to refer the matter to the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee for consideration and advice."
The Commissioner:
Who was the President of the Board of Trade that time?
The Attorney-General:
Mr. Buxton was the President in February, 1911. I can supply your Lordship with the questions and answers if you would like them.
The Commissioner:
I do not want them. You were going to tell me now about November, 1910.
The Attorney-General:
Yes. In November, 1910, the question was put by the same member.
The Commissioner:
Who was he?
The Attorney-General:
Mr. Bottomley, asking whether the President's attention had been called to the fact that the "Olympic" was provided with 14 lifeboats only, being less than a quarter of the number furnished by most other vessels of similar tonnage. That is what he says in the question.
The Commissioner:
What is the answer?
The Attorney-General:
The answer is - this may be the Under-Secretary: "I understand that the 'Olympic' will be provided with 14 lifeboats and two ordinary boats, of an aggregate capacity of 9,752 cubic feet, which is in excess of the requirements of the Statutory Rules."
The Commissioner:
Is this Mr. Buxton?
The Attorney-General:
No, Mr. Tennant, the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade; he answered for the Board of Trade. "I have no information as to any vessel carrying four times this number of boats. The 'Lusitania' and the 'Mauretania' each carry 16 boats." And then the other question, if your Lordship would like the one in February, 1911, which followed upon it. It is this: "To ask the President whether he will state the date of last Regulations made by the Board of Trade in reference to the number of lifeboats necessary to be attached to passenger vessels, and whether, having regard to the increased tonnage of modern ships he will consider the desirableness of revising the Regulations." Mr. Buxton answered: "Those Regulations were last revised in 1894. The question of their further revision is engaging the serious attention of the Board of Trade, and I have decided to refer the matter to the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee for consideration and advice." That is how the matter stood.
Then came the circular of the 18th February, 1911, which, as I said, is at page 18 of the Memorandum, and that led to the four reports of which your Lordship no doubt has sufficient particulars. Substantially, what that came to was this; the view of the Board of Trade, and certainly of Sir Alfred Chalmers, up to that time, had been that it was not necessary. Sir Alfred Chalmers, who was the head of the Marine Department, had certainly taken that view very strongly.
The Commissioner:
And does still.
The Attorney-General:
And does still. Then, in November, 1910 undoubtedly attention was directed to it - the matter was then considered - and by February, 1911, the attention of the various gentlemen at the Board of Trade, the four gentlemen whose names have been mentioned whose reports you have, was directed to this, and they were asked to report, and the effect of their reports was to show that they thought (it is clear that all four thought.) that some further boat accommodation should be required on these large vessels. They varied undoubtedly as to the extent.
The Commissioner:
But if the suggestion of the man whose demands had been greatest had been listened to there would not, as I understand, have been boat accommodation on the "Titanic" as large as, in fact, was provided. Is that so?
The Attorney-General:
No, I do not think that is right.
The Commissioner:
I thought that was so.
The Attorney-General:
No.
The Commissioner:
Now will you tell me.
The Attorney-General:
I will tell you exactly how it stands. I think it would be right to say that there would not have been sufficient boats for the number of persons on board the vessel.
The Commissioner:
That is quite certain; but I want you to tell me this if you can. I think it was the man in Glasgow, was it not, who made the largest.
The Attorney-General:
Mr. Harris - well, Mr. Archer -
The Commissioner:
Yes, I am told Mr. Archer, the Principal Surveyor.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, I think Mr. Archer puts forward the largest.
The Commissioner:
Very well. What did Mr. Archer suggest for a ship of 45,000 tons, because it was all arranged according to tonnage, was it not?
The Attorney-General:
Yes, your Lordship will find his scale at page 18. The effect of it for 45,000 to 50,000 tons is that there should be a minimum number of 24 boats to be placed under davits, with a cubic capacity of 14,250 feet, and with additional boats of 24,937 cubic feet.
The Commissioner:
How much does that make altogether?
The Attorney-General:
If you take the divisor at 10, as I think we have done throughout, that would give sufficient for all, because there were 2,201 on board the vessel. That is the exception that I should have made to what I said.
The Commissioner:
What I had in my mind was this, I think, that it does not make provision for all who might by law be carried.
The Attorney-General:
No, it does not. By law the number was 3,547.
The Commissioner:
And what was the boat accommodation recommended?
The Attorney-General:
The highest was 24,937 cubic feet. It would be 2,493, taking the divisor of 10.
The Commissioner:
Yes, that is 2,493. Supposing the boat carried a full complement of passengers and crew she would be short of lifeboat accommodation to the extent of more than 1,000?
The Attorney-General:
Yes; but I think also one must take into account what the other recommendations were. Mr. Archer went furthest.
Mr. Laing:
Archer was going to dispense with the additional boats.
The Commissioner:
Does he go further in the direction of watertight bulkheads, or something of that kind.
The Attorney-General:
He is in favour of the exemption of the necessity for additional boats.
The Commissioner:
Rule 12 do you mean?
The Attorney-General:
Yes, but it goes further. It is on page 17 of the Memorandum: "If, however, the vessel be divided into efficient watertight compartments to the Board's satisfaction"-
The Commissioner:
That is Rule 12.
The Attorney-General:
Yes - "the total boat equipment would be (say.) 36 boats of 21,313 cubic feet. I would suggest, however, that an alteration could usefully be made in No. 12 of the Rules in the direction of making a larger concession in the case of vessels which are efficiently subdivided. Owing, no doubt, to the very small reduction of life-saving appliances at present sanctioned by this Rule, none of the large vessels recently constructed have complied with the recommendations of the Bulkhead Committee."
The Commissioner:
That comes to this, does it not, that he thinks you ought to cause shipowners to improve the watertight attributes of the vessel by bribing them with a promise that if they do, they need not provide so many lifeboats.
The Attorney-General:
That seems to have been the view right away from 1891. May I finish what Mr. Archer says because it is important, having regard to the Table to which I called attention, he says; "It is suggested that in the case of vessels divided into efficient watertight compartments in accordance with the Committee's recommendations, the additional boats or life-rafts required by Division A. Class 1 (d.), might be dispensed with altogether, provided the boat scale is maintained at about the values shown by the diagram. This would imply, in a vessel of 50,000 tons" - and therefore that is what we must take as what he would have required - "13 lifeboats, 7,750 cubic feet, 775 persons; 11 C. and 2 D. boats, 7,750 cubic feet, 968 persons; making a total of 15,500 cubic feet and 1,743 persons." He takes a different divisor there; no doubt he has got different boats. The substance of that is, and I think that is as far as we can take Mr. Archer's recommendation as applying to a vessel of the character of the "Titanic," that she should have had altogether 24 boats, that is 13 lifeboats and 11 other C. and D. boats with an accommodation for 1,743 persons. I am taking his smaller divisor for that - cubic capacity, 15,500; persons to be accommodated; 1,743.
The Commissioner:
That would be very much less than the number she might carry.
The Attorney-General:
Oh, yes, very much less.
The Commissioner:
Of course one sees the logic of it. If you can get a boat so built that she cannot sink then you do not want any lifeboats at all.
The Attorney-General:
No.
The Commissioner:
But until you get that one can always conceive that there may be an occasion when lifeboats for all the people on board are required.
The Attorney-General:
Yes. Might I add something to what your Lordship said, which is no doubt present to your Lordship's mind? Although you may not have boat accommodation for all the persons on board, if you have an efficient watertight provision on your vessel you can keep the vessel afloat much longer, even though you cannot save her altogether, and with wireless telegraphy which will put you into communication both with the shore and with other vessels, no doubt it was thought that with a sufficient number of boats to take the passengers off to the other vessels or to the shore and to come back again in case of need, they had done all that was necessary.
The Commissioner:
That may be very reasonable.
The Attorney-General:
That seems to have been the view.
The Commissioner:
But at the same time there is no provision there for that possible, though very improbable, calamity, when no assistance comes to the ship.
The Attorney-General:
Quite. Of course, dealing with these large vessels they must be in communication with a number of other vessels, because of the track along which they travel, which is after all just like a main road on land, and indeed when they get within a certain distance along the road they are in communication with the land as we know. They were in communication with Cape Race. That is considered more especially in the recommendation of the Committee in July, 1911, because in the recommendation which they made, they took into account the enormous development that there had been in modern science by the application of wireless telegraphy.
The Commissioner:
Do you suppose, Mr. Attorney, if the "Titanic" had been provided with lifeboat accommodation for all the people on board that any more people would have been saved?
The Attorney-General:
Well, my Lord, the result of the evidence, to my mind, is contrary to that. I was indicating it a little earlier.
The Commissioner:
It is pointed out to me quite properly that the wireless installations are only really of service in a trade like the trade of the Atlantic, where there are many steamers within range, and the recommendations will probably apply to vessels all over the globe.
The Attorney-General:
Yes; but it is quite right to say that they would only apply to vessels on that track? I agree what is meant is that no doubt it would be of much greater value - wireless telegraphy would be of much greater value in a track like that than it would be elsewhere.
The Commissioner:
Take the voyage from the Cape of Good Hope, for instance, to Australia; a wireless installation would probably not be of great value there because the ships would be too far away to be of any use.
The Attorney-General:
Of course it all depends.
The Commissioner:
The ships that you summoned to your aid would be too far away to be of use.
The Attorney-General:
That is no doubt always a factor to be taken into account. It is of the greatest value, of course, where you have vessels navigating along the same track to and fro, as you have here. It is of some value - I should have thought it must be of some value - to any vessel whatever the track it is following but not of such value.
The Commissioner:
There is always hope that the message will reach some vessel which is within reasonable reach.
The Attorney-General:
Or it may be even within reasonable reach of shore.
The Commissioner:
Or reasonable reach of shore. It would not bring it within reasonable reach of shore, I suppose, from the Cape of Good Hope to Australia. If she had only been a few hours from the Cape of course it would.
The Attorney-General:
As your Lordship says quite rightly that is one voyage, but you may take a number of others. In that particular one, of course, they would be a long way from land for a very long period.
Now, my Lord, if I may go back for a moment just before I say another word about what the Advisory Committee reported, the other gentlemen who reported on this matter gave lower figures.
The Commissioner:
Yes, but I would rather take the higher figure.
The Attorney-General:
Very well, the others are before you; we will leave it at that.
The Commissioner:
Yes.
The Attorney-General:
Then I will not bother about the other three, but I do think we must deal with the Advisory Committee's figures, because there you had the result, at any rate, of a very expert Committee. We have gone into it, and it is sufficient to give the figure. 8,300 cubic feet capacity would be the extent of the requirements for vessels of 45,000 tons and upwards according to that Committee's Report of July, 1911. All I wanted to say was that was the view of that Committee in July, 1911, an Advisory Committee constituted, as this Committee was, of representatives of all those who really had the means of bringing expert knowledge to bear upon the subject, and all of the different interests, also, in the shipping world. The result nevertheless, was that in July, 1911, the full extent of the boat accommodation required by that Committee in a vessel which was fitted with efficient watertight compartments was 8,300 cubic feet. So that in July, 1911, according to that Committee's requirement, the boat accommodation for the "Titanic" would have been less than under the Regulations which had hitherto existed. I will tell your Lordship why I say that.
The Commissioner:
That is not quite accurate.
The Attorney-General:
I will tell you why I say it. 8,300 feet compares with 5,500 feet in the Table of 1894.
The Commissioner:
Well?
The Attorney-General:
But under the Regulations for 1894 they would have had to find three-fourths additional unless they complied with Rule 12, which brought it up to the 9,625 feet. Under this scale, which was recommended by this Committee, if you had efficient watertight compartments it was not a question of being relieved of a portion only of the additional boat accommodation required, but you were to be relieved of it altogether. Under the old Rule you were only relieved of one-half of the additional boat accommodation; under this Report you were to be relieved of it all. So that under this Committee's Report, assuming that the "Titanic" was fitted with efficient watertight compartments, which I should have thought no one would doubt, having regard to the knowledge at that time, then all that she would have required to find would have been 8,300 cubic feet - boat accommodation for 8,300 feet, which would have given 830 persons.
The Commissioner:
What I must have had in mind in what I said just now was that, under the Regulations of the Sub-Committee, which were adopted by the Advisory Committee, if the "Titanic" had been provided with lifeboat accommodation according to their recommendations, she would not have had as much lifeboat accommodation as she in fact had.
The Attorney-General:
That is so.
The Commissioner:
That is true, is it not?
The Attorney-General:
That is true. That is upon the assumption which I made as I stated just now for this purpose, that she was fitted with efficient watertight compartments and applied for the exemption.
The Commissioner:
Now, what is the definition of "efficient watertight compartments"? Is there any?
The Attorney-General:
No, there is not.
The Commissioner:
It is left entirely to the Surveyor.
The Attorney-General:
There is not a definition, and that is just what I meant by the observation I made just with reference to watertight compartments. That is left undoubtedly, at present absolutely, to the Surveyor. I said, and I think I am justified in saying, that having regard to the state of knowledge at that time no Surveyor would have said, the Board of Trade Surveyor or otherwise, that the watertight compartments of the "Titanic" were not an efficient provision.
The Commissioner:
Then can you tell me why the White Star Line, the Oceanic Steam Navigation Company, did not apply under Rule 12?
The Attorney-General:
Oh yes, for the simple reason that they meant to carry more boats than were required by the Board of Trade Rules, as, in fact, they did. They carried 11,325 cubic feet capacity as against 9,625, the maximum which could be required under the Board of Trade regulation. I have no doubt that what affected them was that it was desirable in order to attract persons to travel by their lines that they should carry more boats. I should imagine that that was the reason. Their's was a commercial enterprise, and they thought it was desirable to carry more, but when you have that Committee's Report before you, the latest document giving the latest results, the consequence would have been, as your Lordship said, that if that Report had been accepted in its entirety there would have been only accommodation for 830 persons.
The Commissioner:
I suppose it is impossible to make a ship unsinkable, and, at the same time, for it to be of mercantile value.
The Attorney-General:
I should certainly assume it, otherwise I am quite sure it would have been done.
The Commissioner:
It would have been done.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, because, if anybody could say now he could make an unsinkable ship nobody would want to travel in any other. But just see the difficulty of it.
The Commissioner:
You could conceive of its being rivetted so that no water could possibly get into it, and when put into the sea and it will not sink, but it is not very much use as a cargo carrying ship.
The Attorney-General:
And less as a passenger carrying ship.
The Commissioner:
Well, I should think so.
The Attorney-General:
You may say a vessel should have a double bottom Well, she has, up to a point. You may say, "Well, she shall have a double skin right through, an inner and an outer skin."
The Commissioner:
It is even if she has a double bottom, I suppose?
The Attorney-General:
Yes, but what is equally important is, that she may be penetrated above the double bottom.
The Commissioner:
I suppose some people would say the double bottom ought to be carried up?
The Attorney-General:
That is what I meant by saying an inner and an outer skin.
The Commissioner:
A double bottom and a double top?
The Attorney-General:
Yes, If this vessel had been holed in the double bottom, a totally different state of things would have happened. There you have every provision made for safety; but when she is holed above, once the side is penetrated and the water is pouring in, of course, you have only your watertight compartments to depend upon. And if she is holed in a sufficient number of compartments, as she was in this particular case, then it is impossible to keep your vessel afloat. I mean, that is the position. I suppose the true answer would be that a naval architect would have told you - again I speak with all diffidence - that you have done everything that could be desired if you have provided a vessel which will float with two adjoining compartments flooded and still have a freeboard from 2 1/2 to 3 feet - the top of her bulkhead still 2 1/2 to 3 feet above the waterline, with two adjoining compartments flooded. It is difficult, indeed, to say the extent to which modern science can go; taking two compartments, one fore and one aft, that is not sufficient, but if you have two compartments in a vessel which would stand penetration and flooding, I think it would be said that you have done everything that could be desired. But this vessel went further in her construction, because she was designed and constructed to float with two adjoining compartments flooded, and not only that, but, as your Lordship remembers, in this particular case, loaded as she was on this occasion she would have even floated with three adjoining compartments flooded. That was the view of Mr. Wilding, shown by him by the plans which he put in. But what, of course, nobody ever contemplated - that is the real explanation of the difficulty that happened here - no one ever contemplated that you would have that kind of disaster which could penetrate a vessel in five compartments, and assuming that she was holed in No 4, even six.
Continued >
