British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry
Day 35
Final Arguments, cont.
To some extent you must bear in mind also that some of the emigrants were foreigners, but even then with regard to that the evidence is that interpreters were sent along to explain to them what it was that they were required to do. So that viewing the evidence in all its aspects, and bearing in mind what has been said by my learned friend Mr. Harbinson, I think what it resolves itself into eventually is that the third class passengers were more loth to leave their cabins and to get into the boats than the first class passengers seem to have been, or even the second class passengers; and further that they were not so favourably situated, and their cabins were not so favourably placed as either first or second class, but as far as I am able to gather anything from the evidence there is no other explanation of why it is that so many were lost. Your Lordship will remember the proportion is very striking.
The Commissioner:
There were 560 third class, I think, in the vessel. [Should be 706.]
The Attorney-General:
Yes, about. And, my Lord, the evidence with regard to it, both as to the access to the boat deck and as to what was done is all collected, but I am not sure whether your Lordship has got it. Some attention was directed to it undoubtedly by my learned friend Sir Robert Finlay, and in some detail, but whether your Lordship has all the information upon that which is available I am not quite certain.
The Commissioner:
I do not think you need stop to examine it in any closer detail.
The Attorney-General:
If you please, my Lord; then I will pass from it. It will save a good deal of time. Now, my Lord, I propose to deal with what happened with reference to the boats. I am not now upon the accommodation provided - that I propose to deal with when I come to the important part of the case that affects the Board of Trade. My Lord, the boats are dealt with in the boat list, of which your Lordship has the analysis before you, and if I may say so, it is done with such care and so well that I do not think I could usefully spend any time in attempting to amplify it. Your Lordship really has the substance of it there, and it is as well put as it can be.
The Commissioner:
Mr. Attorney, which is the question to which you are directing my attention now? What is the number of it? Is it a specific question?
The Attorney-General:
Yes, there is a specific question, of course, as to the capacity of the boating accommodation. I think really it comes into Questions 16, 17 and 19, and 20 is quite specific upon the point.
The Commissioner:
Read me Question 20, please.
The Attorney-General:
"What was the number of (a.) passengers, (b.) crew taken away in each boat on leaving the vessel? How was this number made up, having regard to, first, sex; second, class; third, rating? How many were children and how many adults? Did each boat carry it's full load, and, if not, why not?" But there are several questions that deal with the boats.
The Commissioner:
Am I expected to take each boat separately and set out the circumstances relating to it? There is a question, I think, that asks me to do it.
The Attorney-General:
You are asked this: How many passengers and crew left in each boat? That is all, I think.
The Commissioner:
I can do it in a way, but not precisely, I am afraid.
The Attorney-General:
I do not think anybody with the greatest care, even if we had much more evidence than we have, could be quite precise about it, but I do not think it is intended that you should do more than to give an indication according to the evidence of how many you think were carried in each boat.
The Commissioner:
According to the evidence a great many more people were carried away in these boats than they were capable of carrying.
The Attorney-General:
I quite agree, and that is particularly striking when you examine the proportions. I think as far as I have been able to analyse it, according to the evidence, we know in fact there were 711 persons saved in the boats; that is the full number. There were, according to the evidence, 836 carried in the boats, and who ought to have been saved if that number is right, and moreover, it shows quite plainly that the Witnesses have been inclined to over-estimate the number of women and children who went away in each boat, and to under-estimate the number of male passengers that went away in the boats, as well as the number of the crew. That is exactly how it stands.
The Commissioner:
Yes, that is exactly how it stands; there is an exaggeration in the gross number, and there is an exaggeration of the number of women and children.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, the tendency undoubtedly has been for the Witnesses who have been called to make out that more women and children were carried in the boats than were in fact carried, and a less number of men and crew. It is striking in particular with regard to the women and children, because in fact there were 388 saved of women and children; according to the evidence there were 642 women and children saved. In fact there were 126 male passengers saved; according to the evidence there were only 71. In fact there were 189 male crew saved; according to the evidence, only 123. So that bears out what your Lordship said as a summary. That is dealing with the total number saved as 703 instead of 711, as we now know it, but the other figure is not of very great importance.
Now, my Lord, may I say just a word, and it will not be more, because I have already indicated to you at an earlier stage of the case what my view was in answer to a question from your Lordship with reference to the discipline upon which your Lordship is asked a specific question; I think it is No. 17. My Lord, one cannot peruse the evidence given in this case without, I think, being very much struck by the discipline of the crew, taken as a whole, and of the behaviour of the crew. To take one instance, and I think a very, very striking one, to which I was adverting only a little while ago, when I called your attention to the evidence of Dillon and Cavell, trimmer and fireman, who were in No. 4 boiler room, they had been on deck, and there were others who had been ordered down below in a vessel which they know was in great jeopardy, and who heard the order which had been given from the bridge to uncover the boats and to man them, and to be ready to launch them, and to fill them with women and children. All these men on board knew perfectly well that they were in grave peril, and yet it is one striking fact that they go down, apparently without any question, without any murmur, they go down below to work on board that vessel, and down below in the hold when the water was coming in, as we know, in No. 4 boiler room, till the water was up to their knees, when they were ordered to come up on deck through the escape, and when they found, in fact, that all the boats had gone except the collapsible, and I think one ought to bear in mind the behaviour of these men in the circumstances. These were not even seamen, and on the whole I do not think that one is saying a word too much when we say that the behaviour of those men was heroic. My Lord, one is also struck in reference to the evidence about the engineers. Not a single engineer was saved. As my learned friend Mr. Roche said in the very admirable address he made to your Lordship, it is by no means an uncommon thing; it is a common thing to find that no engineers were saved. There they are right down in the vessel, and during a time of peril they do not come up, and they did not come up in this case until, if at all, all hope of safety had disappeared. There is some evidence of some eight men having been seen, it is not quite clear that it is right that they were engineers, but whether they were or not, when they were seen it is as plain as possible that it was only after all the boats had gone, and when there was no hope of rescuing them. And another striking fact which is worth remembering also, of which my learned friend reminds me very pertinently, I think, is that there were eight ship's boys on board this vessel. We have heard nothing about them; they played no part in their humble capacity on board this vessel as ship's boys; every one of them was drowned. They might very properly, if it had been desired, been treated as juveniles, but they were not; they went down as part of the crew of the ship; and, as I say, we do not hear a single word about them.
My Lord, really, speaking with the rarest exceptions in this case, everybody on board seems to have behaved in this moment of the gravest peril, realising, as they must have done, that they were in imminent danger of losing their lives, with a calmness and with a devotion to duty which I hope will always be remembered to the credit of those who sail on board British vessels. My Lord, in the same connection, I think one ought also to remember the passengers; the accounts which have been given of the women who refused to leave their husbands; took their chance, and must have known perfectly well what it meant; and the accounts that we have had of some, knowing quite well that, by staying on board, they were doomed to destruction, nevertheless preferred it - preferred to remain with their husbands to going on board the boats. It must also not be forgotten, my Lord, that the men, with the exception of, I think, only in one instance of which evidence was given of a rush by the second and third class passengers to one boat, which was checked, as your Lordship will remember, by Mr. Lowe - with that exception, again the passengers seem to have behaved extremely well. My Lord, the men on board made no attempt to leave the vessel. It must have been realised, I suppose, at an early moment on board that vessel, so far as one is able to reconstruct the scene, that there was only accommodation, and that not even sufficient, for the women and children on board that vessel, and no attempt made on behalf of the men to force themselves in, as your Lordship so pertinently observed recently; even in one case where there were two men who got in because they thought there were no more women, when the women were seen the men got out and the women were placed in the boat and were saved. Your Lordship will remember again one other significant fact, that although the stewards and crew were marshaled to keep the line and to prevent the male passengers from getting into the boats, and to take care that only women and children got into the boats, the evidence is that they had nothing to do; that the passengers stood there and made no attempt in any way to get into the boats, but assisted in keeping order with the stewards and with the rest of the crew. All those are factors which it is as well that one should bear in mind, and I know your Lordship will bear them in mind when you come to deal with what happened on this vessel after the casualty.
My Lord, this becomes of greater significance when you present to yourself the picture in that vessel, of the ship sinking by the head, the water always getting further and further mastery over the ship, the boats going away one by one, and the realisation of those who remained on board that ship that, although the water was gaining control over the vessel, there was no boat, and there was no possibility of their leaving the vessel. There is some evidence, the evidence of Mr. Bride, that when the news came through, as he received it, that the "Carpathia" was coming to their assistance (I think I am right in saying that it was at 12.35 that that happened - it is within a minute or two.), that that news was taken by him at any rate to some of those who were on board the vessel. It may be that that caused a good many to prefer to remain on board the vessel, but one does not know exactly how much was known of that; one can only surmise that if there was information of that kind given by him, as he says he did give it when he went up amongst the people on board the vessel, it would very soon spread and very soon be known, and no doubt helped to steady those people who were on board, and made them able to wait the arrival of the "Carpathia" with greater fortitude. But still, all the time this vessel is getting nearer and nearer to foundering, and all the time one sees that the boats are being lowered and the last means of escape are disappearing.
Now, my Lord, I do want to make one comment with regard to this matter, and that is in respect of this No. 1 boat. No. 1 boat was the emergency boat on the starboard side, the boat which has figured somewhat prominently in this case on account of the evidence which was given in the first instance by Hendrickson, and which led, in consequence of some possibly underlying suggestion to the calling of Sir Cosmo and Lady Duff-Gordon. As I said at an earlier part of this case, and I repeat it now, any comment that I have to make with regard to this boat is not directed against either Sir Cosmo or Lady Duff-Gordon. For my own part, I should find it impossible to make any harsh or severe comment upon the conduct of any woman who, in circumstances such as these, found herself suddenly lowered down this great vessel on a dark night into the water in a small boat, and who was afraid to go back because she thought there was a danger of being swamped. At any rate, I shall make no comment whatever upon it. But, my Lord, the evidence, and the reason why I am directing attention to it, is that it is quite plain that for some reason that boat was lowered with 12 persons in it instead of 40, and there is not the faintest explanation, as far as I can see, of why that happened. There were altogether seven of the crew of that vessel; of course, a far larger proportion in comparison with passengers than in any other boat. There were seven crew and five passengers - Sir Cosmo and Lady Duff-Gordon, Miss Francatelli, and the two American passengers. That constituted the whole of the evidence. And also it is apparent from the evidence that they did not get into the boat - that is to say, these passengers - until the boat was being lowered. Your Lordship will remember the evidence in particular with regard to the two American passengers, that they came running along, and were bundled into the boat at the last minute as she was going down. The order which was given is an order with which one has become somewhat familiar in this case - I do not profess to be repeating the exact words, it is not necessary that I should read them - but substantially it was that they were to stand by the vessel and to come back when called upon. My Lord, I am quite sure - in fact, I know it has exercised your Lordship's mind a good deal, as it must those of all who have striven to comprehend that order and see what it meant. The only possible explanation, it seems to me, is that it was intended at one time, as no doubt, it was according to the evidence to fetch passengers from the gangway aft. We have had the evidence about the proposal that they should be put into boats from the gangway aft, but apparently that is all we hear of it, nothing seems to have been done, and so far as I know, of the evidence no order was given as to preparing the gangway or opening the door, and one quite understands, of course, that it might have been a very dangerous thing to do if the vessel is all the time going down further and further by the head; it may have possibly been a thing that could not have been done, but, my Lord, there, I regret to say, the matter must be left as regards this boat. I am quite unable myself to offer any explanation of it. I am puzzled over it. I have read the evidence with care, but I cannot see why this boat was lowered in these circumstances and with that very small number of passengers.
My Lord, the value of it as throwing light upon this Enquiry, is, I think, twofold. First of all, it shows, I think, the importance of boat drill; it shows further that had there been boat drill, you would have had your men presumably at the moment ready, knowing what there was to be done, and I think if there had been better organisation as to what should happen in the case of an emergency such as this, there would have been a better possibility of getting the passengers into the boats. One is a little struck by this - and I make this observation for your Lordship's consideration - that although, as I have said, there was perfect discipline in the sense that there was no panic, the organisation does not seem to have been quite satisfactory with regard to getting the passengers out from their cabins and placing them in the boats. What strikes one in reading the evidence is that nobody seems to have known precisely what his duty was, or how many persons were to be placed in the boat before the boat was lowered. Certainly that is the evidence with regard to a number of the boats. I think I am right in saying (I will deal with it in detail.) that there were only four of the boats that left with their full complement of passengers and crew; but all the rest left with a less number than they could have carried, more particularly could have carried on this particular night.
Now, my Lord, one must bear in mind as against that, I think, that this vessel was on her first voyage. I suppose if those who were on board the vessel, particularly the crew, if they are in the habit of being re-engaged after they have been discharged at the end of a voyage, would become more familiar with the vessel, and would better know what should be done at the particular moment, in an emergency, they would certainly know the vessel better, but it is a factor which ought to be borne in mind that during this voyage at this particular moment when this emergency arose, there seems to have been no satisfactory organisation with regard to getting the passengers on deck. What I mean by that is, I should have thought that it might have been possible to have had men told off whose duty it would have been in an emergency of this character to call the passengers and to bring them on deck; but, in any event, what we do know about it is that these boats left, and left without their full complement, which might have carried a larger number, and, therefore, would have led to a smaller loss of life, and that of these the worst of them is this boat No. 1.
Now, my Lord, the comment I desire to make upon that is more especially with regard to the man who was in charge (and the man who was in charge was Symons.), whose duty it was to attempt to save life if there was any possibility of doing that. The man does not seem to have carried out, at any rate, the order that was given to him. He was told to go away and stand by. Instead of that, as far as I understand his evidence, and I have looked at it with great care, he seems to have got away as far as he possibly could; and when he heard the cries, although one can quite realise and quite understand that a man would hesitate, and rightly hesitate, at plunging into a mass of struggling people, yet at the same time there were a great number who might have been saved if the boat had gone back before he had got as far as the people who were huddled together, according to the evidence of one person, as they were in the water after the vessel had gone down, and Symons' evidence, I suggest to your Lordship, was unsatisfactory. He gave no proper account of why he did it. He had got some parrot phrases somewhere in his mind that in the exercise of his discretion he had done it and that he was the Master of the situation, but they afforded, as far as I can follow, no justification for what he did, and I do not think there is one, and, as far as I am able to see from the evidence, there is no explanation of why he went away and made no attempt at all to save life - no explanation at all, except that he says he was afraid that if he had gone back they would have been swamped. My submission to your Lordship with regard to that is that it is not a true explanation of what happened at that time. He was afraid also, I think I am right in saying, of suction. My Lord, none of those things justify a man in his position who is used to the sea -
The Commissioner:
When was the boat lowered into the water?
The Attorney-General:
I think it was from ten minutes past one till a quarter-past one.
The Commissioner:
It was a full hour before the foundering of the "Titanic."
The Attorney-General:
Quite. The order in which the boats were lowered, I think, was 7, 5, 3, 1, and this boat would be lowered just about ten minutes to a quarter-past one, according to the evidence. As your Lordship says, that was at least an hour before the foundering. But as to that part of the case, as to what happened, why he did not come back, what he did, and why no further passengers were placed in the boat, I confess to me is very difficult to explain. I can see no justification for it, and I can see no explanation for it, but there it stands. My Lord, when I say I see no explanation of it, I think it is right to bear this in mind, and to call your Lordship's attention to it, that Mr. Lowe, the Officer, said he took everybody who was on board who was there as far as he could see, and that there were no people left on the starboard deck at the time. I think that must be a mistake, because it is quite clear that after that, the four after boats were lowered on the starboard deck, and that there were a number of passengers and crew who were in those boats. As your Lordship will remember, boat No. 15, which is the one as to which there was a good deal of discussion, was the last one which left. So that he must be mistaken with regard to that. I suppose what it really means is that he did not see any others, but it cannot be that there were no other women and children on the starboard deck at the time this boat was lowered, as we know for an absolute certainty that the other four boats were subsequently lowered, and of course carried with them a number of women and children.
The Commissioner:
The capacity of this boat was 40?
The Attorney-General:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
And it went away with 12?
The Attorney-General:
Yes, of which seven were crew.
The Commissioner:
Was there any other boat that went away with so small a proportion of passengers on board?
The Attorney-General:
No, my Lord, there was no other boat; and there was no other boat which went away with a larger number of crew than passengers either - none. Well, my Lord, I confess I am quite unable to understand why that boat was lowered in that way, and equally I am unable to understand why no attempt was made by Symons subsequently to save the lives of some at least of the people who were in the water.
Now, my Lord, dealing generally with the boats, I am not going through it in detail because your Lordship has the list before you, generally dealing with them, the only boats that took their full complement and even more were four, Nos. 11, 13, 14, and 15, that is the total. Now, my Lord, one has to see why it was, what explanations were given of why these boats were not more fully loaded. In this particular case, of course, it was of supreme importance, because if the boats had been loaded to their full capacity in each case, there would have been so many more lives saved which were lost. Now, my Lord, in the first instance, the one view is that Officers superintending the lowering were afraid that the boats would buckle or that the falls would give way. That is one explanation. The second is that there were no more women at hand to get into the boats, or, in any event, no women who were willing to get in. The third is that it was contemplated that more people would be put into the boats when they were in the water from the gangway ladders - that is the explanation I referred to before. Those, I think, are the three explanations of why every boat did not go away at least with its full complement.
Now, my Lord, I do think that in this case it strikes one as very regrettable that the Officers should have had doubts in their minds as to the buckling of these boats or as to the falls being incapable of bearing the strain of carrying the full complement down, because there is no doubt that a number of boats were lowered into the water with less than their full complement for that reason. That is quite clear.
The Commissioner:
Is there any satisfactory evidence that they did fear the buckling of the boats?
The Attorney-General:
There is a statement with regard to it of the Witnesses, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
I know. I mean, what is the statement to that effect? Are we to be led to suppose that these lifeboats are so constructed that they will bear the strain, when hanging from the davits, of the full complement of passengers?
The Attorney-General:
I should have thought so, my Lord. I should have thought that clearly they were constructed for that purpose.
The Commissioner:
Then I do not see, if that is so, why you think that the Officers should know that, and then I do not know why, especially in this calm sea, there was any fear of the boats buckling. I can well imagine that the passengers, women and children, had inconceivable fear, but I cannot imagine why the Officers should have had any fear of it.
The Attorney-General:
Of course, there is the evidence your Lordship will remember of Mr. Lightoller about it, who himself says that that was his view; and there is also the evidence of one of the men, Poingdestre, who says that the boat was ordered to be lowered because Mr. Lightoller thought the falls would not stand a heavy load. That is the falls. It has just the same effect, of course, but it is not the boats.
The Commissioner:
It is the same thing. Of course the Officers ought to have known that the boats and the falls would stand the strain. I cannot help thinking that the real reason was that they could not induce any more people to get in at the time. Did Mr. Lowe stop people getting into the boat?
The Attorney-General:
Certainly his view was that he was taking risks. I do not think that he stopped them.
The Commissioner:
Is there any evidence that Mr. Lowe actually stopped people from getting into the boat when it was not full?
The Attorney-General:
I do not think he says that. I do not remember his saying it.
The Commissioner:
Did Mr. Lightoller say it?
The Attorney-General:
Mr. Lightoller's view certainly was that it was not safe for the boat.
The Commissioner:
He had no business to have such an idea.
The Attorney-General:
I think it was deplorable of course for any Officer to take that view with regard to the lifeboats, which are there for that very purpose, that the Officers should not have known the number of persons to be carried. Each of these lifeboats would have carried 65 persons as lifeboats, and indeed some of the boats went away carrying 70, and those who were in the boats were saved.
The Commissioner:
One boat, I think, was lowered with something like 70.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, No. 11, some say 70, and some say 74.
Mr. Laing:
Seventy may not be accurate. We do not know.
The Attorney-General:
I agree; of course it is very difficult to say exactly how many there were, and I do not think anyone could say with precision how many were saved and how many were in each boat. But at least we do know this, that 70 to 75 is the effect of the evidence, and this boat, No. 11, seems to have carried the largest number. No. 15 was said to have carried 70; there was a good deal of evidence about that. I have before me just now Mr. Lowe's evidence about it. I do not think he said anybody was stopped. His view was that he was putting people in, and that he thought he was taking risk in doing it; and I did call your Lordship's attention when I was dealing with boat No. 1 to what he had said in dealing with passengers on the starboard side; but in this connection Mr. Lightoller's evidence is at page 314, and at Question 13883 he deals with this question, "Was boat No. 6 filled? - (A.) It was filled with a reasonable regard to safety. I did not count the people going in." That seems to be the extraordinary view or opinion he formed. "But you exercised your judgment about it? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) It was filled as much as you thought was safe in the circumstances? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) In your judgment, is it possible to fill these lifeboats when they are hanging as full as you might fill them when they are water-borne? - (A.) Most certainly not."
The Commissioner:
Then he is wrong about that?
The Attorney-General:
Absolutely wrong, according to everybody's opinion. Then your Lordship asks, [13887] "Is that due to the weak construction of the lifeboats, or to the insufficiency of the falls? - (A.) A brand-new fall, I daresay, would have lowered the boats down and carried the weight, but it would hardly be considered a seamanlike proceeding, as far as the sailor side of it goes, but I certainly should not think that the lifeboats would carry it without some structural damage being done - buckling or something like that. (Q.) And had you those considerations in mind in deciding how many people should go in the boat? - (A.) Yes," and then my learned friend, the Solicitor-General, who was examining him referred him to Poingdestre's evidence upon it, to which I called your Lordship's attention just now, but here it is and the convenient thing will be just to refer your Lordship to Poingdestre's evidence. It is at page 83 he is asked, [2958] "Do you know how it comes that there were not more than 42 put into this boat? - (A.) Yes." (That is boat No. 6, that is the boat constructed, of course, to carry 65, he says.) "Well, the reason is that the falls would not carry any more. (Q.) You mean somebody was frightened of the falls? - (A.) Yes, the Second Officer, Mr. Lightoller. "Did you say anything aloud about it" -
The Commissioner:
This evidence comes to no more than this, that Lightoller was afraid.
The Attorney-General:
That is all, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
My attention was drawn to Mr. Lowe's evidence.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, my Lord. There is a little more at page 477.
The Commissioner:
That has been read already.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, my Lord, it is a passage that I called attention to.
The Commissioner:
[15907] "And that was why you lowered the boats from the boat deck when they were not altogether full? - (A.) I was working on the idea that the gangway doors were going to be opened, and take people from there." Then he says in answer to that last question, "Certainly; we were not going to load the boat with its floating capacity from the davits." (The Commissioner.) Do you see any reason why the lifeboats should not have been lowered full of people? - (A.) Yes, I do. (Q.) Did you see any one of them lowered full of people - I mean with about 60 in the boat? - (A.) No, Sir; I could not say that I did. (Q.) What, in your opinion, is the reason why the boat should not be lowered full of people? - (A.) The reason, my Lord, is that the boat is suspended from both ends, and all the weight is in the middle, and that being so the boat is apt to buckle, that is, break in the middle, and both ends buckle up like that (Showing.), and shoot the whole lot out of her." Well, I do not know whether this man was cross-examined or examined about it again. Had he ever seen such a thing?
The Attorney-General:
I am much obliged to your Lordship for calling my attention to it. Would your Lordship mind reading the next two Questions?
The Commissioner:
"At all events, you would not think it safe to do it? - (A.) No. (Q.) How many were in your boat when it was lowered? - (A.) I mustered them when I got away from the ship, and there were 58 passengers - that would be 65 altogether. (Q.) That was lowered without buckling? - (A.) Yes, but I said I was taking on risks, Sir." "Do you think the boats were fit to be lowered with their full complement," and Lightoller and this man Lowe seems to have thought that there was some risk. What business they had to think there was some risk, I do not know.
The Attorney-General:
At page 427 your Lordship will see according to that, Mr. Wilde, the Chief Officer, thought so too. Question 17897, "Can you give any explanation of this boat No. 8 being lowered and launched with only 35 passengers? - (A.) No. The only thing is that Mr. Wilde, the Chief Officer, said there were quite enough in that boat to be safe to lower it."
Continued >
