British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry

Day 22

Testimony of Sir Walter J. Howell, cont.

22426. And he represented the masters and Officers. Your Lordship will remember the Imperial Merchant Service Guild is represented by my friend Mr. Holmes in this Enquiry. Mr. Sheares was nominated by the Institute of Marine Engineers and represented the Engineer Officers. Mr. Spencer was nominated by the marine Engineers' Association, and he also represented Engineer Officers. Then Mr. Henson and Mr. Cathery and Mr. Havelock Wilson were nominated by the National Sailors' and Firemen's Union, and represented seamen. Mr. Barrie was a shipowner and Mr. Joyce was a pilot; Mr. Henry Radcliffe, shipowner, and Sir Walter runciman, shipowner, were additional members, the last four being appointed by the Board of Trade. That made the Committee. That was the Committee which had been in existence for a number of years. I do not know whether you can tell me how long?
- It is reappointed at intervals.

22427. I am not sure what you mean. The Committee was appointed originally under the act of 1888?
- Quite.

22428. And its constitution is provided by the statute, and again under the merchant Shipping Act of 1894, under that 17th schedule to which I referred?
- Yes.

22429. Then there is the appointment of the Committee. It must have been under the merchant Shipping Act, 1894?
- Quite.

22430. Does that Committee continue in existence up to the present moment?
- No, it was appointed for two years.

22431. And then?
- And then can be re-appointed with or without alteration.

22432. When was this Committee appointed consisting of the gentlemen whose names I have read?
- In 1909. There has been very slight alteration in the Committee's constitution from the beginning. There are one or two things to which I will call attention. If your Lordship has the document before you, the three or four paragraphs that follow I think should be read: "When matters concerning the revision of the Rules for Life-Saving Appliances are to be considered by the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee the Board of Trade appoint representatives of the Committee of Lloyd's Register and the Committee of the Institute of London Underwriters to assist the advisory committee. On this occasion" - that is referring to the 1911 Committee and Enquiry - "Messrs. T. Rome and R. A. Ogilvie represented Lloyd's Register and the Institute of London Underwriters respectively. The following two gentlemen were also co-opted for this occasion - Rt. Hon. A. M. Carlisle, representing shipbuilders, and Mr. T. Royden, representing shipowners."

The Commissioner:
Is this sheet which you have given me torn out of the historical document that you intend to furnish me with?

The Attorney-General:
Yes, but I wanted it a little re -arranged, and I also thought it would be better to have it printed a little larger. This was part of the appendix, but I do not want to hand it in as it is now, because it really includes a little too much and wants a little alteration. I had given directions before we came in this morning that it should be done. It is only because I have some Departmental papers, which my friends could not have, which made me think I had some material which could not be included in Mr. Laing's document. But we will make a comparison, and I have no doubt anything Mr. Laing has done will be most useful so far as it goes, and we will incorporate in it also our own papers. It is this Committee which reports in July of 1911. If your Lordship looks at the names you will see -

The Commissioner:
They are substantially the same.

22433. (The Attorney-General - To the witness.) It was a Sub-Committee, I think, was it not?
- Yes.

22434. It does not include all members?
- No.

The Commissioner:
I thought it was a Sub-Committee.

The Attorney-General:
It really must have been because of the names.

The Witness:
On page 17 it is so headed.

The Commissioner:
Mr. Norman Hill in his letter of the 4th July refers to the Report of a Sub-Committee.

The Attorney-General:
That Sub-Committee consists of a number of persons who either constituted the Committee, or were nominated in accordance with the powers of the Board of Trade, according to the paragraphs which I read after reading the names of the members of the Committee.

The Commissioner:
For instance, it will include Mr. Carlisle, who was not one of the Committee.

The Attorney-General:
Yes, and Mr. Royden, who was a shipowner, and also Mr. Rome, who represented Lloyd's Register, and Mr. Ogilvie, who represented the Institute of London Underwriters.

The Commissioner:
And none of those gentlemen are mentioned on the Committee.

22435. (The Attorney-General.) No, none of those four are mentioned. (To the witness.) Why was it that on the 4th April, 1911, the Board of Trade was minded to have this scale reconsidered? What had happened in the interval?
- In the interval between when?

22436. The last consideration of which you have told my Lord before April, 1911, was 1904?
- Yes.

22437. Had there been an increase in the tonnage of the boats constructed during the few years preceding 1911?
- Yes, I think so, considerably.

22438. Does your Lordship remember at one stage my friend, the Solicitor-General, handed in a picture with a Table showing the increase in the tonnage of the boats constructed over a period of years?

The Commissioner:
I do not remember it.

The Attorney-General:
You did have it; it was this, (Showing a picture.) only a little larger.

The Commissioner:
Oh, yes, we have that.

22439. (The Attorney-General.) It only dealt with the White Star Liners, but it showed the increase. (To the witness.) The tendency during those intervening years had been towards increasing the tonnage of the vessels constructed?
- Yes.

22440. It had the "Mauretania" and the "Lusitania" in it?
- Yes.

22441. Which I think were over 30,000 tons?
- Yes.

22442. It was about 1907 that they were built?
- Yes.

22443. And subsequently to that, of course, we had the designing of the "Olympic" and the "Titanic," which were the two largest?
- Yes.

22444. It was that tendency to increase the size of the vessels that caused the Board of Trade to direct the attention of the advisory committee to the scale then in existence?
- Quite so.

22445. (The Attorney-General.) Now, My Lord, I propose to refer to the Report of the Committee. (Copies were handed to the Court.) On the 4th July, 1911, there is a letter from the merchant Shipping Advisory committee forwarding Report on proposed amendments of the Life-Saving Appliances Rules. "We have the honour to report that your letter of the 4th April, with reference to the minimum number of lifeboats to be carried on vessels of 10,000 tons gross tonnage and upwards and your letter of the 17th May, on the subject of the depth of lifeboats, have been very carefully considered by the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee, and that it was unanimously decided at a meeting held on the 29th ultimo to adopt the report of a Sub-Committee which was specially appointed to enquire into these questions. A copy of the Report is accordingly forwarded herewith, and the Committee desire us to suggest, for the consideration of the Board of Trade, that effect should be given to the recommendations contained in it." That is signed by Sir Norman Hill, Chairman, and Mr. R. W. Matthew, Secretary. Am I right in this, that Mr. Matthew, who was Secretary, was in the Board of Trade?
- Yes.

22446. He occupied some position, I am not quite sure what it is?
- He is an Upper division Clerk in the Board of Trade.

22447. Was there any other representative of the Board of Trade upon it?
- There are the four members who were appointed by the Board of Trade as additional members, but not as representatives of the Board of Trade.

22448. They are not officials of the Board of Trade?
- No.

22449. They are four shipowners and shipbuilders and so on, who were nominated by the Board of Trade to sit on the Committee?
- Yes, the President thought there should be a few more, and he put those on.

22450. The reason I make that correction is because somebody, I think it was Mr. Carlisle, did say that there were a number of officials of the Board of Trade upon the Committee. That is wrong. The only one is Mr. Matthew, who is the secretary. There are four persons appointed by the Board of Trade, but they are not officials.

The Commissioner:
Mr. Matthew is not on the Committee.

The Attorney-General:
No.

The Commissioner:
He is appointed in the ordinary way; Secretary to the Committee.

The Attorney-General:
Except for that this is an Advisory committee independent of the Board of Trade. There are only four nominated by the Board of Trade. This is the Report: - "In accordance with the decision of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee at their meeting on Friday, the 28th April, we have given careful consideration to the letter of the 4th April from the Board of Trade, in which the Committee were asked to advise: -

(1.) As to the manner in which the table in the appendix to the Life-Saving Appliances Rules should be extended so as to provide for vessels of tonnage up to 50,000 tons gross and upwards; and

(2.) As to whether Rule 12 should, or should not, be revised so as to exempt altogether from the requirements of additional boats and for rafts those vessels which are divided into efficient watertight compartments to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade.

In considering these questions, we have had specially in mind the fact that the number of passengers carried does not necessarily increase in proportion to the increase in the tonnage of the vessel. This is particularly true in the case of vessels exceeding 10,000 tons, a type of vessel which is practically only built to provide special accommodation for large numbers of first and second class passengers.

Similarly there is no fixed relation between the tonnage of vessels and the deck space available for the carrying of lifeboats under davits. Increase in the length of a vessel is only one of the factors and often not the most material factor contributing to the increase in its tonnage, and it should also be remembered, in estimating the space available for the launching of lifeboats, that it is impossible to place davits forward of the bridge and very undesirable to have them on the quarters of the vessel.

We are strongly of opinion that every encouragement should be given to secure the provision of vessels which by their construction have been rendered as unsinkable as possible and which are provided with efficient means for communicating with the shore or with other vessels in case of disaster.

In view of these considerations, we have agreed upon the following recommendations:-

1. That it is questionable whether it is practicable to increase the number of davits;

2. That any increase in the number of lifeboats to be carried can probably be best effected by providing for the launching of further boats from the existing davits;

3. That the table should be extended in the manner indicated below, viz.:-

Gross tonnage Minimum number of boats to be placed under davits. Minimum number of additional boats to be readily available for attachment to davits. Total minimum cubic contents of boats required by columns 2 and 3.
10,000 and under 12,000
12,000 and under 20,000
20,000 and under 35,000
35,000 and under 45,000
45,000 and upwards
16
16
16
16
16
-
2
4
6
8
5,500
6,200
6,900
7,600
8,300

That 8,300, your Lordship will see, is to compare with 5,500 at page 17 of the existing Rules.

The Commissioner:
Or it compares with the 10,000 in this Report.

The Attorney-General:
It does. The reason I am comparing the last is because that is what would apply to the "Titanic." That is, of course, Merely what is required for the attachment to davits.

The Commissioner:
What strikes one at once looking at this Report is this: in cases where the gross tonnage has increased more than four times, or about four times, the cubic contents of the boats required to be carried is only increased about one-half.

The Attorney-General:
Yes, not quite 50 percent.

The Commissioner:
About one-half. That strikes one on the face of it as singular.

The Attorney-General:
Your Lordship sees how it stands.

The Commissioner:
You see a corresponding increase in the number of boats, but not those under davits; they remain stationary.

The Attorney-General:
They are to be readily available for attachment to the davits, as your Lordship points out. Then the Report goes on: -

It is further recommended that all passenger vessels of 10,000 tons gross tonnage and upwards should be required to be fitted with wireless telegraphy apparatus.

4. That the Rules should be amended so as to admit of decked lifeboats of an approved type being stowed on top of one another or under an open lifeboat, subject to suitable arrangements being made for launching promptly the boats so stowed;

5. That the additional boats and rafts required under the provision of division (A.), class 1 (d.) of the Life-Saving Appliances Rules shall be of at least such carrying capacity that they, and the boats required by columns 2 and 9 of the above table, provide together three-fourths more than the minimum cubic contents required by column 4 of that table;

6. That vessels divided into efficient watertight compartments to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade should (provided they are fitted with wireless telegraphy apparatus.) be exempt from the requirement of additional boats and/or rafts. The Committee suggest in this connection that the Board of Trade should review the requirements designed to attain the standards as to watertight compartments at present enforced by them under Rule 12, having regard to the developments of shipbuilding since the report of the Committee on the spacing and construction of watertight bulkheads.

We have also had before us the board's further letter of the 17th May, enquiring whether, in the opinion of the advisory committee, it would be advisable to prescribe a maximum depth for lifeboats as compared with their breadth, and, if so, what that proportion should be.

In connection with this letter, we have been supplied by the Board of Trade with reports from their Principal Officers in Great Britain, giving the dimensions and cubic capacities of the various kinds of boats on five typical ships in each of eight ports.

We recommend that the board should be advised to alter the Life-Saving Appliances Rules so as to provide that in future, the depth of lifeboats supplied to a British merchant vessel shall not exceed 44 percent of their breadth.

(Signed.) Norman Hill,
A.M. Carlisle,
S. Cross,
Wm. Theodore Doxford,
Geo. N. Hampson,
Robert A. Ogilvie,
T. Royden,
T. Rome,
Thomas Spencer,
J. Havelock Wilson.

The Commissioner:
Someone has written in pencil opposite to those names, "E. Booth, Cunard."

The Attorney-General:
The Attorney-General: I do not know what that is.

The Commissioner:
Mr. Booth is Chairman of the Cunard Company.

The Attorney-General:
This means nothing; it was a note.

The Commissioner:
It perhaps means that Mr. Booth is not amongst them.

The Attorney-General:
I do not know what it is.

The Commissioner:
Did Mr. Carlisle say to me that Mr. Booth was on that Committee?

The Attorney-General:
Oh, no. If he did I did not hear him.

The Commissioner:
It was in answer to me. I do not know that it matters much. Is there anybody in that list that does represent the Cunard Line?

The Attorney-General:
I do not think so.

The Commissioner:
Mr. Carlisle at that time did not represent Harland and Wolff.

The Attorney-General:
I understand Mr. Royden represented the Cunard Company. There is nothing on the papers to show it. That is to say, he is a director of the Cunard. He was nominated by the Board of Trade. What your Lordship is referring to I see is at page 552, in the evidence of Mr. Carlisle. I will read you all that there is that applies to it.

The Commissioner:
I do not think it matters. Do not stop to do it. Does it matter?

The Attorney-General:
Not the slightest, except that your Lordship seemed to suggest there was somebody who was not included in it. I see how the mistake arose. He thought it was the Chairman, and then your Lordship said: "Do you mean Mr. Booth?" and he said he did, whereas it was a director, who was Mr. Royden.

The Commissioner:
He meant Mr. Royden.

The Attorney-General:
Yes, that is the explanation. I notice in comparing this with the scale, there is a different gradation adopted by the Committee. It is a much steeper one than the one suggested by the Board of Trade in their letter of the 4th April.

The Commissioner:
May I look at that paper again which has "E. Booth" pencilled on it? (The same was handed to the Commissioner.)

The Attorney-General:
If you compare that scale with the scale in the print at the foot of the letter of the 4th April, 1911, you will see that, although its limits are the same the gradation is much steeper in the advisory committee's recommendation.

The Commissioner:
Now, you have got to the 4th July, 1911.

The Attorney-General:
Yes.

The Commissioner:
Now, what was done after that?

22451. (The Attorney-General - To the witness.) After the receipt of this Report was the Report first of all examined and considered by the Board of Trade?
- Yes.

22452. Is it the practice to examine and consider it before it is laid before Parliament?
- Yes, always.

22453. (The Commissioner.) I should like to know, as a matter of curiosity, what you mean by the "Board of Trade" in that connection? Who are the gentlemen?
- The Marine Department.

22454. Who are the gentlemen?
- The gentleman who would examine it at once would be the chief professional Officer.

22455. What is his name?
- The chief was at that time Captain Young. He was the professional member of the Marine Department.

22456. Would anyone else examine this Report?
- He would call into counsel any other of his officers he thought necessary.

22457. Do you know whether he did call in anybody?
- I am not sure; I think he did.

The Attorney-General:
I am going to call him

The Commissioner:
Very well.

22458. (The Attorney-General.) Was this question as to the relative proportion of the depth and breadth of the lifeboats considered an important one?
- An extremely important one, I know, because he told me so himself.

22459. I do not want to go into it in any detail, but the point was this, that unless you had some restriction or some Rule with regard to the relative proportion, a vessel could say it was complying with your rules as to cubic capacity although the depth would be so great that the boats would not be able to carry the number of passengers intended?
- Not properly carry them.

22460. So that it was thought necessary to have some fixed proportion between the depth and breadth so as to really make your rule operative, so that the cubic capacity required should in boat accommodation be sufficient to carry a certain number of passengers according to your scale?
- Yes, that the boat should be of a good type.

22461. We need not go further into that at the moment. Were some experiments undertaken at your chief ports?
- Yes, they were; very exhaustive experiments, I believe.

22462. By local Principal Officers?
- By local Officers under Captain Young's directions.

22463. That is one of the matters dealt with in that Report, as we see from reading it.

The Commissioner:
I thought the experiments were subsequent.

22464. (The Attorney-General.) So they were, but the question of the relative preparations were of importance because, in consequence of them, some new Regulations would have had to be made by the Board of Trade to carry the recommendations into effect. (To the witness.) Before the Rules were made and in order that you should once for all make a regulation which was to apply to all future boats, you were making experiments so that you might be quite sure of your ground before you demanded that boats should have a certain proportion of depth to breadth?
- That is precisely the position.

22465. When were those experiments concluded?
- I think, speaking from memory, towards the end of the year.

22466. Were Rules drafted?
- No.

22467. Was there an amendment of the general Rules submitted to the Department? When you had got to the end of your experiments and you had got your reports by November, 1911, in the ordinary course of things then the Board of Trade would have to give effect to those views?
- Yes.

22468. If they meant to change anything they would have to amend the general Rules then in existence. That is right, is it not?
- Quite.

22469. Did they draft an amendment of those general Rules?
- No.

22470. What happened?
- They were not satisfied altogether with the position. They thought that the matter should go back to the advisory committee for certain other consideration.

22471. Let us follow that I think there is a little confusion, because I am speaking from a statement which I have got. Was not there a draft amendment of the general Rule submitted to the Department by the Principal Ship Surveyor at the end of January, 1912?
- Yes, I rather foolishly misunderstood your question.

22472. There was a draft amendment of the Rules submitted?
- Yes, there was.

22473. Was that at the end of January, 1912?
- Yes, and it was only by one Officer.

22474. That is the Principal Ship Surveyor?
- Yes.

22475. Was the matter then further considered?
- Yes, it was.

22476. By whom?
- By the professional member.

22477. Was that during February and March?
- Yes, during the early months of this year.

22478. And then on the 4th April did you direct that a letter should be sent to the advisory committee?
- Yes.

22479. Is there any note of that direction?
- Oh, yes, it is on the official minutes.

22480. Was it a direction that a letter should be sent to the advisory committee with regard to the extension of the boat scale and of the draft Rule as to the form of boats?
- That is so.

22481. As far as I know that letter was not actually sent till the 16th of April, 1912?
- That is quite true.

22482. Had the Easter recess intervened?
- It had.

The Attorney-General:
The important thing is the date.

The Commissioner:
A critical date.

22483. (The Attorney-General.) Yes, a very critical date (To the witness.) It strikes one at once that the letter which is sent is sent really on a date after we received the news of the "Titanic" disaster?
- That is true.

22484. We received that on the 15th, and then the letter is sent by you on the 16th, but as I understand you, the direction for that letter had been given on the 4th April, before the Easter recess?
- Yes, the most precise directions.

22485. (The Commissioner.) Where are those directions recorded?
- On the Board of Trade minutes.

22486. Have you got them here?
- No.

22487. (The Attorney-General.) There is no difficulty in getting them, is there?
- It is not usual to produce the minutes.

22488. (The Commissioner.) You need not allow a difficulty of that sort to stand in your way?
- I do not wish to raise any difficulty at all.

The Attorney-General:
I quite understand, it is not usual to produce them, and you think you ought to point that out. But all we want is to see the direction that was given on that particular day. That is what my Lord wants to see.

22489. (The Commissioner.) And then I want to ask another question. Why was not the letter written? And then I want to ask another question. Was the letter of the 16th April written because of the "Titanic" disaster?
- Shall I answer those questions now?

22490. Yes, if you can?
- This is the position. I hope I shall make it quite clear. The action of the Board of Trade had been directed on the 4th. The letter was not prepared until some days afterwards, and it was actually sent on the 16th. Before the letter actually went it was brought to me, and it was pointed out: "This disaster has happened, is this letter to go?" And I said "Certainly it is to go at once without the smallest alteration of any kind or sort."

22491. When had the letter been prepared?
- Between the 4th and 16th.

22492. Oh, but when?
- I cannot give you the date. My directions were given on the 4th.

22493. I know that. Do you mean to say it was prepared before you heard of the loss of the "Titanic"?
- Oh, I think not - not the actual draft.

22494. Then there is no significance in that?
- I want to explain why I did it, My Lord.

The Commissioner:
All I want to see are the minutes directing that this letter should be prepared.

The Attorney-General:
The minutes have been sent for, and your Lordship shall have them.

The Commissioner:
They are close at hand?

The Attorney-General:
Oh, yes. In point of fact the letter which bears date the 16th April deals, of course, with the questions raised in the report. There is another letter which, at any rate, your Lordship should have in mind whilst your mind is directed to this point. There was the letter written on the 20th April, which has specific reference to the "Titanic."

The Commissioner:
You might read us that.

22495. (The Attorney-General.) This is on the 20th April. This is from Sir Walter Howell to the secretary of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee:

Sir, - With reference to previous correspondence between the Department and your Committee respecting the revision of the statutory Rules for life-saving appliances on British ships, and particularly to the letter from this Department of the 16th April, I am directed by the Board of Trade to state that as an entirely new situation has been created by the recent disaster to the s.s. 'Titanic,' they assume that the Committee, in reconsidering the matter in connection with the suggestions already put before them by the board, will have full regard to this new situation, and the facts of the disaster so far as ascertained. As you are doubtless aware, suggestions have been made in the House of Commons and elsewhere to the effect that, in view of the loss of the 'Titanic,' action should be taken by the Board of Trade in regard to certain questions other than those expressly dealt with in the Life-Saving Appliances Rules, e.g., in regard to (1.) steamship routes in the North Atlantic; (2.) the speed of steamers where there may be dangers to navigation; and (3.) the provision and use of searchlights on large passenger steamers; and the board would be glad to know the Committee's views in regard to these, and any other suggestions which may have come to their knowledge, intended to diminish the risk or to mitigate the effects of accidents to passenger vessels at sea." Then there is an answer to that which is, I think, the last letter that I think need be read and which will be included in the documents which will go before your Lordship. It is the 27th April. This is from Sir Norman Hill, the Chairman, and the secretary, "We are desired by the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee to inform you that your letters of the 16th, 20th, 24th and 25th inst. were brought before the Committee at a meeting held yesterday." I have the letters of the 24th and 25th, but they really do not add anything. "The Committee fully recognise that the proved impossibility of keeping such a vessel as the 'Titanic' afloat, after a collision with ice, until the arrival of outside succour, has created an entirely new situation, which was neither in the contemplation of the Board of Trade nor of the Committee in the consideration of the extension of the existing boat scale in regard to vessels of 10,000 tons and upwards. In advising on such extension in July last, the Committee aimed at providing ample boat accommodation on large passenger vessels in accordance with the principles that were adopted by the original Life-Saving Appliances Committee, and which principles had apparently been fully justified by many years of experience. It is with satisfaction that the Committee note that the Board of Trade, apart from the new possibilities demonstrated by the loss of the "Titanic," agreed in the essentials with the recommendation of the Committee. In face of the new facts, the Committee, at their meeting yesterday, reopened entirely the question of the revision of the boat scale for large passenger vessels, with a view of providing the maximum of protection for the passengers and crew in the event of an overwhelming disaster, whilst, at the same time, Maintaining the principles in regard to the stability and sea-going qualities of the ship itself, and to the prompt and efficient handling of the boats carried under the existing scale, which hitherto have proved not only essential to safety, but also adequate for all ordinary emergencies. The questions involved are not free from difficulty, but they will receive the immediate attention of the Committee. Pending their consideration the Committee note that assurances have been received by the Board of Trade from representatives of most of the large passenger lines to the effect that every effort will be made to equip their vessels, at the earliest possible moment, with boats and rafts sufficient to accommodate all persons on board. In regard to the recommendations forwarded with the Committee's letter of the 4th July last that the Board of Trade should, having regard to the developments in shipbuilding since the Report of the Committee of 1891, on Spacing and Construction of Watertight Bulkheads, review the requirements designed to attain the standards at present enforced under Rule 12, the advisory committee note that the Board of Trade have under consideration the appointment of a Committee of equal standing to that of the Committee of 1891. In view of the great importance of this question the advisory committee desire us respectfully to urge that such a Committee be appointed at as early a date as possible. The subject of the general revision of the statutory regulations as to boats and life-saving appliances on all ships, which, apart from the questions on all ships, boat accommodation on vessels over 10,000 tons, is for the first time referred to the advisory committee by the letter of the 25th instant, together with the particular questions raised in the letters of the 16th, 20th, and 24th instant, are also receiving the immediate attention of the Committee. At yesterday's meeting sub-committees were appointed to give immediate consideration to the subjects requiring detailed examination. These sub-committees will pursue their enquiries concurrently, and we are desired by the advisory committee to inform you that their investigation into the revision of the Life-Saving Appliances Rules will be proceeded with as expeditiously as possible." That, I think, is all the correspondence that is really material. There are letters which refer to it, but I do not think they help at all. Now if I may just deal, while they are getting these minutes, with the report of July, 1911. It is quite clear from that, that if that Report had been adopted the boat accommodation on the "Titanic" would have been very far short of that which would have been necessary to take off all the passengers and crew from the vessel.

The Witness:
That is so.

The Commissioner:
And it appears to me it would have been very far short of what was, in fact, on the "Titanic."

The Attorney-General:
Yes. If it took advantage of the right to apply for exemption provided they satisfied the Board of Trade as to the watertight compartments and also that they had the proper wireless telegraphy apparatus, that would be the case.

The Commissioner:
What was the tonnage?

The Attorney-General:
46,000.

The Commissioner:
She would have had 16 boats under davits.

The Attorney-General:
Yes, and 8 which were to be readily available for attachment to davits. So that it would be 24 boats which must have a minimum cubic capacity of 8,300.

The Commissioner:
What was the cubic capacity of the boats on the "Titanic"?

The Attorney-General:
The total capacity was 11,325, of the 20 boats.

The Commissioner:
Comparing the boat accommodation by the cubic contents, the boat accommodation was, in fact, on board the "Titanic" considerably in excess.

The Attorney-General:
But I think we are measuring a little too soon, because you have to add something to the 8,300. I put the question a little too quickly yesterday to Mr. Carlisle, and then pointed out that it was not quite right. If you add the three-fourths you will get then 6,225 which must be added, giving a cubic capacity altogether of 14,525 as against 11,325, the actual cubic capacity of the boating accommodation on the "Titanic."

Continued >