British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry
Day 32
Final Arguments, cont.
There is also an answer 13891 which perhaps I should refer to which may a little qualify what he said. "(Q.) Did you give any further order to that boat No. 6" - that is the first boat to get away on the port side - "as to what it was to do or where it was to go? - (A.) Not that I remember. I knew there was, if I may mention it, this light on the port bow about two points: I had already been calling many of the passengers' attention to it, pointing it out to them and saying there was a ship over there, that probably it was a sailing ship as she did not appear to come any closer, and that at daylight, very likely a breeze would spring up and she would come in and pick us up out of the boats, and generally reassuring them by pointing out the light; but whether I told them to pull towards the light, I really could not say. I might have done it and I might not." Then on the same page, 314, your Lordship will find in answer to Question 13896, and following questions, you have some evidence as to the gangway doors. "(Q.) Did you give any orders with the object of getting more people into it when it was in the water? - (A.) Yes; I see what you are alluding to now, the gangway doors. I had already sent the boatswain and 6 men or told the boatswain to go down below and take some men with him and open the gangway doors with the intention of sending the boats to the gangway doors to be filled up. So with these considerations in mind I certainly should not have sent the boats away. (Q.) That is what I meant. Did you give any order or direction to the man in charge of boat No. 6 that he was to keep near or was to go to the gangway doors? - (A.) Not that I remember. The boats would naturally remain within hail. (Q.) You do not recollect whether you gave any actual order to the man in charge? - (A.) No. (Q.) It is just as well to read this question and answer. This man Poingdestre was asked, "Did Mr. Lightoller give you any orders as to what to do with the boat"; and the answer was, "He gave me orders before the boat was lowered what to do. (Q.) What orders did he give you? - (A.) To lay off and stand by close to the ship? - (A.) Perhaps I did; I daresay. (Q.) Now let us pursue the two things you have mentioned. You say you gave those orders to the boatswain to go down with some men and open the gangway doors? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Will you point out on the starboard side where they are" - then he explains the doors. Then Question 13905, "Did the boatswain go off after receiving the orders? - (A.) As far as I know he went down." It was not done; it must have been countermanded.
The Attorney-General:
There is no evidence that it was done.
Sir Robert Finlay:
There is no evidence of any kind. It certainly was not done. I suggest it was not done for the reason I have mentioned, that they might have been apprehensive of the ship sinking.
The Attorney-General:
It might be because they were expecting the "Carpathia." They knew she was coming and they did not want them to stray where they might not be picked up.
Sir Robert Finlay:
And also they may have thought that the light on the port bow belonged to a vessel which would come to them, and that would entirely account for the order which the Captain is said to have given to row for that vessel with that light, put the passengers on board, and come back. That would have been an almost impossible order if that light had been many miles off, but if the Captain assumed that the vessel was coming it was a very natural order.
The Commissioner:
It is said it would have taken them about two hours to row to that light.
The Attorney-General:
It was about five miles.
Sir Robert Finlay:
That would be if the light remained stationary. If, on the other hand, the vessel with that light came towards them, the order becomes perfectly intelligible. The ship would be there in half-an-hour.
Then with regard to Number 8 you have the order to which I have referred. It is the second boat on the port side. Crawford, at page 426, Question 17817: "(Q.) And before you left the ship's side did Captain Smith give you any directions with regard to a light? - (A.) Yes, he pointed to a light on the port side, the two masthead lights of a vessel, and told us to pull for there, and land the people and return to the ship. (Q.) Did you see those lights yourself? - (A.) I did. (Q.) And what did you think they were? - (A.) I thought they were a vessel with two masthead lights? (Q.) A steamer's masthead lights? - (A.) Yes." I have made my observation with regard to that, that they thought the vessel was coming.
Then with regard to No. 10, there is no evidence of any order. Mr. Wilde was there: he was the Chief Officer. He was there as appears at page 141, Question 5999. This is in the evidence of Joughin "(Q.) Why was it that you did not get in. - (A.) Well I was standing waiting for orders by the Officer to jump in, and he then ordered two sailors in and a steward - a steward named Burke. I was waiting for orders to get into the boat, but they evidently thought it was full enough and I did not go in it." At the top of page 140 is a reference I ought to have given to your Lordship. (Q.) (5943.) "What did you find was the situation then? - (A.) Everything orderly." That is with reference to No. 10 as appears in the immediately preceding question. "The Chief Officer was there. (Q.) Is that Mr. Wilde? - (A.) Yes, Mr. Wilde." Then "(Q.) What was happening; how far had things got? - (A.) They were getting the boat ready for getting the passengers in, and Mr. Wilde shouted out for the stewards to keep the people back, to keep the men back, but there was no necessity for it. The men kept back themselves, and we made a line and passed the ladies and children through. (Q.) Who made the line? - (A.) The stewards mostly - stewards and seamen; they were all together. (Q.) I think I caught you to say that though Mr. Wilde gave the order to keep the men back, there was really no necessity; they kept back themselves? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Was the order good - the discipline good? - (A.) Splendid."
Then with regard to Number 12. Mr. Lightoller was there. That is at page 82, Questions 2914 and 2962. Question 2914 is, "(Q.) Was there anybody there looking after it? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Who? - (A.) Mr. Lightoller. (Q.) Is he an Officer? - (A.) Second Officer. (Q.) Was there anybody else with him? - (A.) No, only myself." That is Poingdestre speaking. Then Question 2961 is, "Now having lowered her down to the water, did Mr. Lightoller give you any orders as to what to do with the boat? - (A.) He gave me orders before the boat was lowered what to do. (Q.) What orders did he give you? - (A.) To lay off and stand by close to the ship."
So that your Lordship sees that with regard to the starboard boats there is specific evidence in every case of that order to remain at hand. With regard to the boats on the port side there is that order in some cases; at least in one case it is specifically proved, and in another case there is no evidence of the order at all; we do not know what it was.
With regard to Number 8 the Captain said, "Pull for that light, land the passengers, and return," which comes to very much the same thing. And with regard to Number 6, Mr. Lightoller's evidence at page 314 certainly points to his having expected this boat to remain at hand because he was giving the order at the same time to open the gangway doors, and there are other answers which I have just read which indicate that that is what he meant the boat to do.
With regard to the other boats on the port side, 14, 16, 2, 4, and the collapsible, there is no evidence of an order at all. There may have been or may not have been.
Now, my Lord, my suggestion is this, that there is no ground for the charge put forward that there was want of discipline on the part of the Officers and crew. Your Lordship will find that charge formulated at pages 760 and 761 of the Notes.
The Commissioner:
The evidence of the Witnesses is that good order was kept throughout.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes, every Witness.
The Attorney-General:
Not quite as far as that; it is not every Witness.
The Commissioner:
Is there any evidence that there was confusion and disorder?
The Attorney-General:
Yes, there is some. There certainly is some evidence of a rush by second and third class passengers for the boats.
The Commissioner:
I am not talking about the passengers; I am talking about the crew, the people handling the boats.
The Attorney-General:
Any evidence of a rush by the crew?
The Commissioner:
No, any evidence of disorder or want of organisation among the crew. There was a rush of passengers, but I thought the suggestion made by the gentleman in that part of the Court was that by reason of the want of drill these boats had not been handled in an expeditious and orderly way.
The Attorney-General:
I shall also make that comment, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
Well, I say that so far as the oral evidence goes there is nothing to support that, if it is to be believed you know. I do not recall anything.
The Attorney-General:
I do not quite understand what your Lordship means.
The Commissioner:
The facts may point to disorder, but the oral evidence, as far as I remember it, always is that good order was kept.
The Attorney-General:
Yes. There is no statement to the effect that there was disorder, I agree. What I am relying upon is the facts and the explanations of what happened.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I think, my Lord, that I am correct in saying that the only evidence of any misconduct on the part even of passengers was that some two or three foreigners tried to rush into a boat as it was being lowered, and Mr. Lowe, the Officer -
The Commissioner:
Took out a pistol.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes, a revolver, and fired one or two shots into the water by way of showing what any man who tried to transgress the Rules of order might expect.
The Commissioner:
I remember it.
Sir Robert Finlay:
And that was quite effective because there was nothing more of the kind.
The Commissioner:
I am reminded of the cowardly attack that was made upon Phillips when he was busy, but that of course had nothing to do with the boats, and that I think was by a fireman.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes, that incident is quite unexplained.
The Attorney-General:
The criticism which I shall make upon the discipline and organisation is directed to the preparations that were made before the disaster and actually up to the time of the disaster. Of course it does involve Southampton principally because the time had not arrived apparently for the boat muster as they call it which was to take place. What I propose to say in reference to it is that if there had been better organisation and better preparation for such an event a number of people would have been saved in the boats who were lost. That is the criticism I am going to make. I am certainly not going to say that there was anything in the nature of a panic, or the kind of disorder amongst the crew which would have fostered or promoted panic. Quite the contrary. The submission which I shall make to the Court upon the evidence is that the crew, speaking generally, behaved extremely well on the deck.
The Commissioner:
I am very glad to hear you say that because I think so too.
The Attorney-General:
And so far from there being any panic in the circumstances order was maintained to an extraordinary degree. That is the view I have formed from reading the evidence, and I would add also that with one or two solitary exceptions the passengers seem to have behaved with extraordinary calmness, not to say heroism. I do not think myself that the evidence, except as to these one or two isolated cases which are said to relate to foreigners, would bear any criticism which would reflect either upon the passengers or the crew in that emergency, in which they suddenly found themselves. The kind of argument which I shall address to the Court is more with a view to the future, and also some criticism on the actual state of preparations in the "Titanic," not for the purpose of throwing blame upon them, because I can quite see that there are many circumstances to be taken into account; nor do I think that throwing blame on them in this particular matter would affect the Court's judgment. What I do want to say is that if greater care had been taken before the ship started that all the crew should know what particular boat they had to go to, and what part they were to play, and also with regard to manning the boats, there would have been a different state of things. I agree there are some balancing considerations to be set against that, but I am only indicating it for the purpose of showing my friend the nature of the criticism which I am going to make upon it. But apart from that my view is that discipline was very well maintained.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I am much obliged to my friend, the Attorney-General, for what he has indicated as to the line he is going to take. I have listened with very great pleasure to what he said with regard to the behaviour of the Officers and crew, and of the passengers. I must say, speaking for myself, it rather raised my ideas of human nature to find that such extraordinary order and such extraordinary courage prevailed among such a large body of people brought together in the miscellaneous fashion as the passengers on a vessel of this kind must be. There is one expression that occurs to my memory of how the passengers stood keeping back - the passengers stood at attention, I think one of the A.B.'s said, against the side of the saloon waiting for their turn.
May I refer to one other little incident which struck my mind at the time? One boat was putting off with two vacant places and two men got in. At the last moment two women came running up and those men at once got out and made room for the women, and themselves went down with the ship.
I was going to refer to the way Mr. Scanlan put it. I shall deal with the case substantially with reference to what the Attorney-General has said but it is right. I should also call attention to what was said by Mr. Scanlan. Your Lordship says to him at page 760: "(The Commissioner.) Is it your contention that if there had been more lifeboats on board this vessel more lives would have been saved, although the lifeboats that were there were not used more than to the extent of two-thirds of their capacity? (Mr. Scanlan.) I do say, my Lord, that if there had been discipline - (The Commissioner.) Yes, that may be. (Mr. Scanlan.) And if there had been a training of the Officers and crews in the manning and handling and navigation of the lifeboats, it would have been possible to have launched and lowered lifeboats sufficient to have rescued everyone on that ship. We are all glad to think that there was nothing in the nature of a panic on the "Titanic," but I think it would be blinding one's eyes to the real facts of the case if one were to accept the view that discipline, in any proper sense of the term, was observed after the accident in the filling and sending off of these boats. (The Commissioner.) Now I think what you must say you will probably agree with me - is that the facts speak for themselves, and that the evidence of the Witnesses, who nearly all say that there was no panic and plenty of discipline, cannot be accepted in face of the facts."
The Commissioner:
That is what I meant in speaking a minute or two ago.
Sir Robert Finlay:
"(Mr. Scanlan.) That is my contention, my Lord. Of course, you might have panic in one sense if there had been a rush of the passengers past the Officers to get into the boats; and the Witnesses from the crew, and from amongst the Officers, are quite justified probably in saying that there was no panic whatever in that sense, and that discipline was maintained in that way, and that the Officers were respected by the members of the crew and by the passengers. But in the sense of the Officers and the members of the crew realising the duty thrown upon them and the work they had to do in the circumstances of the disaster, I think I am justified in saying in that broad sense that there was a lamentable want of knowledge and want of discipline amongst the Officers. (The Commissioner.) I want to follow you, and I want to have it clear. All the boats, except possibly one collapsible boat, were launched? (Mr. Scanlan.) Yes. (The Commissioner.) Let us leave out the one collapsible boat. And they were launched well before the ship foundered? (Mr. Scanlan.) Yes, my Lord. (The Commissioner.) So that, discipline or no discipline, the boats were got into the water? (Mr. Scanlan.) Yes, my Lord. (The Commissioner.) All of them, except the one collapsible. (Mr. Scanlan.) Yes. (The Commissioner.) The only fault, therefore, which was of any consequence, if it was a fault, was that they did not get the people into the boats? (Mr. Scanlan.) That is it, my Lord. (The Commissioner.) They managed, discipline or no discipline, to get all the boats into the water. (Mr. Scanlan.) Yes. (The Commissioner.) I leave out the one collapsible boat. What they did not do, for some reason, was to get the people into the boats. (Mr. Scanlan.) Yes, my Lord. (The Commissioner.) Now, have you thought about that? (Mr. Scanlan.) I have, my Lord. I have given a good deal of consideration to the suggestion that people would not go into the boats, and I daresay that at the beginning that was true; but I do think if, when the terrible seriousness of what had happened was recognised by those in charge of the ship, they had told the people plainly that the ship was doomed, and was sinking, and would sink in a very short time, I think there would have been no indisposition to get into the boats."
With regard to that last suggestion, I submit that Mr. Scanlan in making it did not realise what the probable effects of a communication of that kind would have been. Every step, as we know from the evidence, and as I shall show your Lordship in detail if necessary, was taken to get the passengers together on deck. But to raise a cry of sauve qui peut and say the ship was sinking with the women and children on board, besides the vast number of men on board, however well they behaved when they knew there was danger, if a cry of that kind had been started, there almost certainly would have been a rush for the boats, and the very object of those who wanted such information to be communicated to the passengers would have been defeated. I think the Officers acted wisely and well in not adopting any such alarmist policy.
The Commissioner:
In the case of a fire at a theatre, if a man came on the stage and shouted "The theatre is on fire, get out," I should think that would be about the best way to kill every person in the place.
Sir Robert Finlay:
The danger at a fire, and the danger at a shipwreck is very much, if an alarm is started, the rush. More people are killed by the crowding to get out at a fire than by the fire in very many cases; and on board ship, if there is a rush for the boats, the object of those who wish to save life is defeated.
Then, my Lord, with regard to not getting more people into the boats, not filling every boat to its full capacity, I submit with regard to the earlier boats that is abundantly accounted for by the fact that the intention was that they should stand by and fill up, coming to the gangway, and in the exercise of their discretion, the best of their judgment, the Officers had those boats lowered - it was the earlier boats which had the smaller complement - intending and expecting that they would be able to come back and fill up from the vessel.
With regard to the later boats they were filled up and they carried their full complement, I think, in almost every case.
The Attorney-General:
Not every case.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I will not say every case, but I think speaking roughly it is true. I think the deficiency in the filling up of the boats related broadly speaking to the earlier boats.
Now why was it, my Lord, that there was a difficulty in getting the people to come? The women would not; they would not leave their husbands. Many of them could not realise that the vessel was going to sink. That was the second reason. When you are on board a vessel like the "Titanic" you feel that it is like the globe on which we stand. The globe, I suppose, will go to pieces some day, but one does not very much realise it, and when you are on board a vessel like the "Titanic" you have a sense of safety; and these people, to borrow an expression of one of the Witnesses, said among themselves: "We do not like to trust ourselves in these little cockleshells; we prefer to stick by the ship."
The Commissioner:
Rather than drop down 90 feet.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes, it is an appalling prospect, and it quite accounts for the reluctance to go. I do not think that in the criticism suggested - I am not now speaking of the Attorney-General at all; I will deal with what he said about the propriety in future of having training beforehand - but in the criticism suggested by Mr. Scanlan, I do not think sufficient allowance is made for the extraordinary difficulty of the situation. Indiscipline among Officers and crew there was none; the passengers themselves behaved splendidly, and one has to look about for another reason altogether for there not being more going off in the first boats. It is simply the reason that I have stated, that the people were most reluctant, particularly the women, to go; and that it was contemplated that these first boats should return to the ship - should stand off, should come to the gangway and should fill up.
The Attorney-General:
Before my friend passes from the boats I think there is some criticism to be directed - I propose to address some observations to your Lordship upon it - as to the time taken in uncovering and launching these boats. I only wanted my friend to understand that I was going to say something about it so that he might deal with it, if he thought proper.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I will not forget that. I am obliged to my friend. I think that the result, speaking generally, of the evidence is that the earlier boats must have had rather under 38 persons in each on an average; the later boats were filled up. The loading was superintended on the starboard side by Mr. Murdoch, the First Officer, and Mr. Lowe the Fifth Officer, at Nos. 7, 5, 3 and 1, and by Mr. Moody, the Sixth Officer at No. 9; on the port side Mr. Wilde, the Chief Officer, Mr. Lightoller, the Second Officer, Mr. Moody at No. 16 and by Mr. Lowe at No. 14. That is as far as we can trace. It is not possible to be perfectly accurate about it, but that is as far as we can trace it.
Something was said about the Officers thinking that the boat was full enough - not when she should be water borne, but full enough for the purpose of transport through the air.
The Commissioner:
From the davits?
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes. That, of course, raises a question of some nicety. As your Lordship said, it is a most nervous operation, being lowered down from that height. The boats were new, in perfect condition; the davits and the falls were everything that could be desired. No attack has been made upon them, or could be made. But at the same time the Officer might, in addition to what was in his mind about the propriety of the boat standing by and returning, think it was just as well not to fill up too full while the boat was being lowered down. It is a very ticklish situation.
With regard to the later boats they did it; but it is a very ticklish situation lowering a boat for seventy feet through the air. If anything went wrong you might have a catastrophe of the most hideous kind; and if a panic seized the women in the boat and there was a rush from one side to the other you might have the boat turned over. I say it is perfectly impossible, with any reason, to censure Officers who under those circumstances decided that the earlier boats should go away with, on the average, rather under 38 persons in each boat. Later, more passengers had come up ready to go into the boats, and the Officers took the risk of filling up the boats and lowering them. The idea of opening the gangway had had to be abandoned; and there was nothing for it but to fill up the boats, and it says a very great deal, not only for the tackle and equipment, but for the manner in which the operation was carried out, that all these boats with these full complements of passengers in the later boats, were lowered without any accident whatever. I submit that it reflects very great credit upon the training and discipline of the men who were working, and upon the way in which they were directed by their Officers.
I put it to the Court, and your Lordship has the highest assistance on this point, that it was an operation carried out in a manner that reflected very great credit upon all who were concerned in it, Officers and men alike.
Now, my Lord, I propose to show your Lordship the steps that were taken, as soon as the collision occurred, in the way of warning passengers, and that everything was done to get them up on deck. A good deal was said at one period of the case about the impossibility of third class passengers getting up to the boat deck. I think that has all disappeared. It is one of those points upon which an inspection of the sister ship, the "Olympic," was of the greatest possible advantage. There was no difficulty about their getting up, and I am now going to show your Lordship what steps were taken by the stewards for the purpose of marshalling these people up. I forget who it was suggested in the course of one of the speeches to which the Court has listened that the stewards ought to have dragged the women up. I think your Lordship said that that would have been a very alarming spectacle. It may be suitable at a public meeting under certain circumstances, but it certainly would have been very undesirable in this case, and it might have led really to disastrous results. It is not a practical or businesslike proposal.
Now I propose to follow, taking it as shortly as possible, the sequence of events after the collision. The first thing that was done was naturally to close the watertight doors. I need not refer to the evidence about the watertight doors which were operated from the bridge, being closed by pulling over the lever and then touching the spring. That is clearly established. That was done at once. That applies to the lower watertight doors.
Then as regards the watertight doors in the alleyways, they are closed. May I just refer very shortly to the evidence that shows that. At page 147 there is the evidence with regard to E deck, Question 6335. This is in the evidence of Joughin: "(Q.) The only other thing is this. You say you saw men coming to close watertight doors; that is to say, those doors do not shut automatically? - (A.) That is right. (Q.) Was that on E deck? - (A.) Yes, immediately outside my room. (Q.) Watertight doors? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) On E deck? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Was one aft of your room? - (A.) Immediately forward. (Q.) Immediately forward of your room? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Then was it that watertight door, which you see on the plan is in the alleyway, which is in front of your room? - (A.) I am not sure, but I think it is No. 23 door." I need not follow that further. Then on page 231, Question 10338, Pearcey, who was a pantryman on the "Titanic," is asked this question: "What was it that first indicated to you that there had been a collision with the iceberg? - (A.) There was just a small motion, but nothing to speak of. (Q.) What happened immediately after this motion? - (A.) The order was, "All watertight doors to be closed." (Q.) Are you referring to the watertight doors of this F deck? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Were they closed? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Did you help to close them? - (A.)Yes. (Q.) Did several other men help with you? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Where did you close them? - (A.) I closed them on towards aft. I closed the pantry doors of my pantry on the starboard and port sides," and so on.
Then on page 236, in the evidence of Brown, Question 10669, he is examined by myself: "(Q.) Only one question. Did you hear an order given in the alleyway about the watertight doors? - (A.) That was the first order I heard after I was woke by the shock. (Q.) Just tell us what you heard? - (A.) Who gave it I do not know, but I heard an order in the alleyway outside our quarters to close all watertight doors. (Q.) There are watertight doors in the alleyway? - (A.) Yes, lower down, further aft than our quarters are. (Q.) And you heard that order given? - (A.) Yes.
Then on the same page Question 10691: "(Q.) What did you do next? - (A.) The first order I heard was from the Second Steward to close all watertight doors on F deck. (Q.) To close the watertight doors on F deck? - (A.) That was the first order I heard given. (Q.) How long after the accident was it you heard that order? - (A.) A matter of about a quarter of an hour. (Q.) And did you go to F deck to obey that order? - (A.) No. The Third class Chief Steward was sent for, for his men to do that order. (Q.) Was that Mr. Kieran? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Did you see the Captain about this time? - (A.) No. I saw the Captain a matter of about 20 minutes after that." Then comes the order about the passengers going upstairs.
There are only two other questions on this point. They are in the evidence of Joseph Thomas Wheat on page 240, Question 10922. "(Q.) Then what did you do? Where did you go? - (A.) I went upstairs to E deck again and went down to F deck to close the bulkhead doors on F deck by the Turkish baths. There are two bulkhead doors there. (Q.) And did you close those? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Did you do that alone, or did somebody help you? - (A.) I closed the inside one myself and then to close the other we had to go on top and turn that one with a key." Then Question 10937 on the next page: "(Q.) Could you give us some idea, how long after that was should you say, that you closed those watertight doors by the Turkish baths? - (A.) I do not suppose it would be more than five or six minutes. (Q.) Then you were a few minutes down looking at the water? - (A.) Yes."
Then, of course, the nature of the damage had to be ascertained. Mr. Boxhall speaks to that on pages 355 and 356. I do not propose to follow this in detail, but if your Lordship would look at page 355 and the following page, your Lordship will see that, beginning with Question 15358, he gives a description of what was done looking for the damage. It is a longish description and I am not going to occupy time by reading it. It runs over to page 356 down to Question 15377.
Then the carpenter, on the same page, 355, Question 15368, is referred to: "(Q.) Did the Captain then tell you to find the carpenter? - (A.) Yes, I think we stayed on the bridge just for a moment or two, probably a couple of minutes, and then he told me to find the carpenter and tell him to sound the ship forward. (Q.) Did you find the carpenter? - (A.) I met the carpenter, I think it would be on the ladder leading from the bridge down to A deck, and he wanted to know where the Captain was? I told him he was on the bridge. (Q.) Did the carpenter tell you anything about there being water? - (A.) Yes, he did; he said the ship was making water fast, and he passed it on to the bridge." Then the Witness continued on with the intention of finding out what the nature of the damage was and where the water was visible.
Then Mr. Andrews followed by the Captain goes to the engine room (your Lordship will find that on page 89) to see what had happened there. And then the Captain and the purser and Mr. Andrews all go to the main room. That is described three times, I think, on pages 89, 90 and 299. I am not going to stop to read it in detail. Mr. Andrews at that time thought (page 422), as the boatswain told Hemming, that the ship had half-an-hour to live. According to Mr. Boxhall at page 361, Question 15610, it was one to one and a half hours. That is what the Captain told Mr. Boxhall.
Now I propose to take up the very important subject of the instructions given about getting the deckhands up to the boat deck and getting the passengers up there.
