British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry
Day 35
Final Arguments, cont.
I want now to direct your Lordship's attention to what has happened with regard to the Board of Trade.
The Commissioner:
Have you another copy of the Memorandum?
The Attorney-General:
Yes, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
It contains a history of what the Board of Trade have done?
The Attorney-General:
Yes, my Lord; your Lordship shall have it in a moment.
The Commissioner:
You need not trouble; I have it now.
The Attorney-General:
What appears first from this is that under the Statute of 1888, which I am only referring to for the purpose of history, so that one may appreciate what happened hereafter, a Committee was to be appointed which was to advise the Board of Trade as to life-saving appliances. It is unnecessary to refer in detail to it because by the 17th Schedule of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, the constitution of the Committee which is to be formed, is provided. What really happened was that the Act of 1888 was repealed, and the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 provided the constitution of the Committee which was to act. Then just before I get to the Statute of 1894, which for the moment I have only called your Lordship's attention to for the purpose of showing of whom the Committee was to consist, you will find that in 1890 the Committee which was advising the Board of Trade on life-saving appliances (that was the Committee which had been appointed under the Act of 1888.) reported in favour of a scale extending to 9,000 tons and upwards. It stopped at that. Then if your Lordship will look at page 3 of the Memorandum you will see it summarises the history very well.
At the bottom of the page, the last three paragraphs it says: "It will be convenient to summarise the effect of these Rules of 1889, 1890 and 1894 on the minimum provision of boat accommodation required from large passenger steamers carrying emigrants. The life-saving appliances Rules, which came into operation on the 31st March, 1890, provided for ships up to a maximum tonnage of 9,000 tons and over. If efficiently divided into watertight compartments so that with two compartments flooded the vessel would not sink, ships of 9,000 tons and over were relieved from the provision of one-half of the additional boat accommodation required from ships not so divided. The total boat accommodation which they were required to provide was 14 boats under davits of 5,250 cubic feet and additional accommodation making in all a boat capacity of 7,875 cubic feet."
That of course is dealing, as your Lordship sees, with watertight compartments. Then "the total boat accommodation which vessels of 9,000 tons and upwards were to provide, if not efficiently divided into watertight compartments, was a total boat capacity of 10,500 cubic feet."
That is the difference between having to carry a full additional number of boats and only half the additional number of boats.
I will go now to the Rules which came in in June, 1894, because I do not think it is important to trouble you with the slight alteration in November, 1890. In the Rules which came into effect on the 1st of June, 1894, the Table was extended to provide for vessels of 10,000 tons and upwards. Now, will your Lordship look at the Table which follows a little lower? You really get the whole effect in that Table and for the three material periods. I am only going to deal with the first and third because I do not think the one of November, 1890, is of any value. For vessels of 10,000 tons and upwards, under the Rules which came into operation in March, 1890, it was 10,500 cubic feet, if not divided into watertight compartments; if they were divided into watertight compartments it would be 7,875 cubic feet. In June, 1894, there is this alteration, that if they are not divided into watertight compartments, it is 9,625 cubic feet capacity which was to be provided, and if they were divided into watertight compartments, 7,562 cubic feet.
Now the importance in this case is that from June, 1894, until the present date, at any rate until the date of the "Titanic" disaster, that remained the scale in force. Of course, it is said that as ships increased in size so it ought to have become necessary to have more boat accommodation.
Now I want your Lordship just to consider in that connection what the position was when the Rules were made which came into force in June, 1894. Apparently then there were already vessels in existence of just on 13,000 tons. The "Lucania" is given as an instance. And the view taken then was that the provision for 10,000 tons and upwards was sufficient, and nothing further was done. That continued for a very considerable time. These Rules were really re-enacted in 1902, and again the scale remained for 10,000 tons and upwards, and there is no further gradation. In 1909, 1910 and 1911 there were further alterations made in the Rules, but they did not effect this scale, I mean the Committee was sitting. There was specially, your Lordship may remember, a provision made with regard to motor lifeboats, but nothing was done which affected this scale until you get to the period of February, 1911. That, I think, is the important period. In February, 1911, the question was undoubtedly raised, that it was desirable that there should be a further scale and better boat accommodation on the big vessels. Of course, meanwhile, there had been much larger vessels built.
Now, my Lord, just to get the dates correctly. On the 4th April, 1911, there was the reference to the Committee to deal with this matter. It is worth bearing in mind so as to follow what happened, that by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee was constituted under the Statute of 1906, and that since that, what has been done is that references in connection with life-saving appliances have been made to the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee, which apparently appointed a sub-committee to deal with life-saving appliances. It is just necessary to bear in mind the change which had been made from the earlier days when they had a special committee constituted under the Act for life-saving appliances.
On the 4th April, 1911, this reference was made, and your Lordship will remember what had happened before that, which I must state quite shortly; I will refer to the reports a little more in detail directly. By the 4th April there had been a considerable amount of discussion at the Board of Trade with reference to the number of boats to be provided. That led to some reports. Your Lordship will remember reports were asked for, and produced, and are contained in this bundle. There are the reports showing what each of the Surveyors who were asked to report thought was necessary, and the effect (I am only stating it for the moment quite broadly.) was that they differed as to the number of boats that would be required and as to the carrying capacity, but they agreed that it would be necessary and desirable from their point of view to have a scale above the 10,000 tons and upwards; and that is the position. They thought there ought to be a scale above, but undoubtedly they differed very materially as to what the cubic capacity was that was to be provided for, as to the number of boats, and on various points.
Those reports were then sent in and the Board of Trade in consequence of that and seeing the difference of opinion there was between their advisers, referred it to the Committee by the letter of the 4th April, 1911. I will call your Lordship's attention a little more in detail to it in a minute; I just wanted to go through the dates so as to bring quite clearly before your Lordship how the matter stands.
That was reported upon on the 4th July, 1911, by the Committee, and the Committee did make a report which provided for an increased scale, but a scale very far short of sufficiency to provide for all the persons who were carried on a vessel like the "Titanic." Their report in substance came to this, that there should be a cubic capacity of boatage accommodation of 8,300 feet and that there should be a total exemption given from the necessity for providing additional craft if there was an efficient system of watertight bulkheads. This was the matter upon which your Lordship will remember Mr. Carlisle was examined, and explained what he meant by saying "it is quite true they provided for additional boat accommodation, but took it away again by the next paragraph." What he meant by that was that they provided the exemption.
Now, if your Lordship will look at the reference of the 4th of April before you get to the Committee stage, on page 22 of the report, your Lordship will see what they said to the Advisory Committee: "I am directed by the Board of Trade to enclose herewith, for the information of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee, a copy of a question asked in the House of Commons on the 15th of February and of the answer given by the President of the Board of Trade with reference to the Life-Saving Appliances Rules made under Section 427 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. The Board are of opinion that the Table in the Appendix to the Rules should be extended upwards in the form indicated in the accompanying scale, so as to provide for vessels of tonnage up to 50,000 tons gross and upwards. It appears to the Board that the number of boats and the boat capacity need not necessarily increase in a regular proportion according to the increase in tonnage, and that due regard should be paid to what is reasonable and practicable in passenger steamers exceeding 10,000 tons. The attention of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee is invited to the Rule of the 19th April, 1910, as to the stowage of boats" - I do not think I need read that. Then "I am to state that the Board would be obliged if the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee would be so good as to suggest in what manner the scale (see accompanying copy.) should be continued upwards, having due regard to the considerations indicated above. I am further to state that the Board would be glad to learn whether the Advisory Committee are of opinion that Rule 12 should or should not be revised so as to exempt altogether from the requirement of additional boats and/or rafts those vessels which are divided into efficient watertight compartments to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade. I am to add that in considering the questions dealt with in this letter, the constitution of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee should be identical with that of the Committee as recently constituted for the purpose of considering an amendment of the Life-saving Appliance Rules in connection with the Engelhardt collapsible lifeboat."
That led to the Report which I will call attention to at once at page 24.
The Commissioner:
What is the date of this?
The Attorney-General:
4th of July, 1911.
The Commissioner:
I do not see any date on it.
The Attorney-General:
I do not see it, but I think I am right.
The Commissioner:
I see the date is on the covering letter.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, that is the 4th July. "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 requirement 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." Then you will find for 45,000 tons and upwards, 16 boats minimum to be placed under davits; eight additional boats as a minimum to be readily available for attachment to davits, and the total minimum cubic contents of boats required by those two columns is 8,300 cubic feet.
The Commissioner:
Accommodation for 830 people.
The Attorney-General:
Yes. That was the view, one must bear in mind, of course, before such a disaster as the "Titanic" had happened that it was sufficient to provide accommodation for 830.
Then the Report proceeds: "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 provisions 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 3 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 requirements of additional boats and for rafts. The Committee suggest, in this connection, that the Board of Trade should review the requirements designed to attain the standard 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."
Your Lordship sees the gentleman by whom this was signed. This was the Sub-committee appointed by the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee created under the statute of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906 - this was a Sub-committee for dealing with life-saving appliances. Without going through the names of which your Lordship has heard sufficiently for the moment, and some of them will be very well known to you, it is quite plain that this was as representative a committee as you could get. There were undoubtedly representatives of shipowners, of shipbuilders, and seamen, the Union of Seamen and Firemen, of Lloyd's, and also of the Underwriters' Association. So that one has got here really as good a committee as I think could have been selected for the purpose of enquiring into what boat accommodation should be provided. But it cannot be said it is done in the interest of the shipowners - certainly not of the shipbuilders, but not of the shipowners - because you have got the seamen also represented and Lloyd's, who are vitally interested in a question of this character, and the Underwriters' Association.
If your Lordship will look at page 21, you will see Sir Theodore Doxford was the representative of the Institution of Naval Architects. Your Lordship will see on page 21 who the gentlemen are who constituted the Committee. Mr. Carlisle, at the bottom of the page, was co-opted for the occasion as representing shipbuilders, and Mr. Royden as representing shipowners; he was the gentleman who represented the Cunard Company. Sir Theodore Doxford represented the Institution of Naval Architects, and the signatory, George N. Hampson, is Captain Hampson, of the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, representing the masters and Officers, Mr. Rowe represented Lloyd's Register, Mr. Ogilvie represented the Institute of London Underwriters, Mr. Havelock Wilson represented the National Sailors' and Firemen's Union, and Mr. Spencer represented the Marine Engineers' Association, that is the engineer Officers.
I think it must be apparent from that, that every interest that could really give any guidance upon it was represented. This report of the Sub-Committee was adopted by the Advisory Committee.
The Commissioner:
When was it adopted by the Advisory Committee; was it adopted immediately afterwards?
The Attorney-General:
It is in the very letter we were referring to of the 4th July, 1911, at the bottom of page 23, the one where your Lordship got the date from: "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 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."
The Commissioner:
I see what happened. The Advisory Committee sent this copy of the Report of the Sub-Committee.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, with a statement that they adopted it unanimously.
The Commissioner:
Adopted on the 29th June.
The Attorney-General:
Yes. "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."
The Commissioner:
We get then to the 4th July when the Advisory Committee forward to Sir Walter Howell this report of the Sub-Committee and stated that they approved of it.
The Attorney-General:
Yes. Now one fact I think we must bear in mind in connection with the Committee that the division of opinion and the differences of opinion that had taken place between the various gentlemen, who had been asked to report in answer to a circular letter which was sent out by the Board of Trade, and of which you have the details, was not stated to the Committee. There was a suggestion that it was, but it clearly was not.
The Commissioner:
It was thought better not.
The Attorney-General:
Yes. I submit that was the right course for them to take. The Advisory Committee were going to deal with this matter quite apart from any view which the Board of Trade officials might take, and of course the Board of Trade would then have to consider it after they got the report of the Advisory Committee. Then after that came back, a series of experiments were made, the view taken about this matter by the Board of Trade being that before they could prescribe a scale which was to take effect, and which could take effect as regards all ships in this country, they had to make quite sure not only of the scale which they intended to recommend, but also issue at the same time such new Rules as they intended to make with regard to the construction of boats.
The Commissioner:
Of boats?
The Attorney-General:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
You mean lifeboats?
The Attorney-General:
Yes. That had formed the subject of a good deal of discussion, as your Lordship has seen from the report of the Committee. It formed the subject of much discussion, and also some experiments, and it was one of the matters which led up to the sending the question of boating accommodation to the Committee in April, 1911. It is one of the matters dealt with, and one of the matters reported upon.
Captain Young deals with this at page 643. Sir Walter Howell dealt with it, but I am not going to call your Lordship's attention to his evidence, because it really does not assist very much. So far as he was concerned, what he did was to state what was done by Captain Young, and what was done by the Board of Trade, but Captain Young himself has been called, and has told you what he was doing, and, therefore, it is best to go direct to his evidence.
At page 643, Question 23290, he goes into detail as to what was done. His explanation of what happened is worth referring to before we deal with the documents upon which his statement is based, so that your Lordship may see what his explanation is. At Question 23290, Mr. Scanlan says: "When did you come to this conclusion with reference to these big boats." That is, of course, dealing with increased accommodation. - (A.) "Some months back -"
The Commissioner:
With reference to these big boats like the "Titanic" you mean?
The Attorney-General:
Yes. When he mentions about big boats, my friend is speaking of big vessels like the 'Titanic."
The Commissioner:
I do not find here the expression "big boats" at all in the question which you are reading.
The Attorney-General:
It is there, I think.
The Commissioner:
"When did you come to this conclusion with reference to the boatage for the 'Titanic'? - (A.) I did not specially consider the 'Titanic' before the disaster."
The Attorney-General:
Will your Lordship read your question which follows it?
The Commissioner:
Yes, I beg your pardon.
The Attorney-General:
"(The Commissioner.) You do not follow what Mr. Scanlan means. When did you come to this conclusion with reference to these big boats? - (A.) Some months back, my Lord; in fact, when the Report of the Advisory Committee was presented, and I went into the matter, I had this in my mind, but it was complicated by a matter which was of a very serious import, and upon that matter hangs the whole of the so-called delay, which has taken place between the 4th July and the 4th April." That is the 4th April, 1912. "The import of that was I had several matters to consider. In the course of my experience I had realised that the boats that were supplied to ships as lifeboats had been steadily deteriorating in form. I may say that is my opinion. And it appeared to me not only undesirable, but it would have been wrong, in my opinion, with those ideas, to advocate a very large extension of the boat scale; in other words, piling up a large number of boats on to a ship with the knowledge that I had in my mind at the time that those boats were not well adapted for that purpose. In other words, I was impressed with the view that in anything but the calmest weather those boats would not be able to carry in safety the number of people for which they measured; and, therefore, it was" - it is according to the report "unnecessary" but that is clearly wrong - and, therefore, it was necessary under those circumstances to associate with the Report of the Advisory Committee this question of the proper form of the ship's lifeboats. That is the object that I had in view. That is the sole cause of the delay which has been attributed to the Board of Trade in this matter."
Then your Lordship puts to him: "Do you wish us to understand that the boats of the 'Titanic' were not in a proper form? - (A.) I am not alluding to the 'Titanic,' my Lord; I am alluding to the general question of the boats. I believe, from what I have seen of the boats that have been turned out from the yard of Harland and Wolff, that those boats are of the proper form. They are of very good form. But there were many ships' boats turned out, and still are, of a form which is not the best form that can be used on board ships. I may as well say while I am on this subject that the Marine Department of the Board of Trade naturally would not take my assertion simply as an assertion, but they felt it was necessary that that assertion should be verified, and, therefore, they issued instructions for boats to be experimented with around the coast with a complement of persons for which the boats measured. I have no hesitation in saying that the results of those investigations and experiments have fully justified the action which I took on receipt of the Advisory Committee's Report."
May I pause there for a moment just to say what it is he is explaining there. His view, rightly or wrongly was this, that before they issued these Instructions or Rules for the boat scale, they ought to take care also to have quite clear in their minds what construction of boat it was that they were going to require or what special provisions they were going to make and the ratio of depth to breadth. That was the point he had in mind because his view was that in order to make up the cubic capacity to what was required the boats were made far deeper than they ought to be, with the consequence that they would not be able to carry the number of persons for whom really boats of that cubic capacity were intended by the Board of Trade. That was his point. He took the view that in those circumstances what he had to do was to get quite clear what kind of boat they were going to prescribe, and what dimensions, so that they should not first of all issue regulations which would affect the mercantile marine as to the number of boats that were to be carried, and allow them to get boats of some particular construction and of dimensions then in force, when perhaps six or nine or twelve months later they might issue further regulations, saying that all boats must have a certain ration [ratio] of depth to breadth. That is what he has in mind.
Whether it is right or wrong, of course, your Lordship will consider, but that is what he means by it, and he says he thought it was important that the Board of Trade in making the demands which it was going to make upon the mercantile marine, upon these passenger and emigrant vessels, should definitely determine for itself, not only the number of boats that were to be carried, but also the dimensions which they were going to require in respect of the boats to be supplied; so that one set of Rules could be provided dealing with the whole thing.
One has to bear in mind, I think, in this connection, I submit to your Lordship, that at this time, and up to this time, from the figures which you have already got, the loss of life on this track was excessively small. There is no record of any such disaster as this, I mean no record which necessitated a very large number of boats to start with, and again, a record of carrying boats on passenger and emigrant vessels, equipped as they were both with watertight compartments and with boats which had carried passengers in safety during the last 20 years. There was ever, as your Lordship will remember from the figures provided to your Lordship, a decreasing percentage of loss of life compared with the number of passengers carried during the whole of those 20 years. I called your Lordship's particular attention to it at the time I handed those figures in.
Now it is a little difficult - I am only making this observation in passing to your Lordship, I am sure your Lordship will bear it in mind when you come to consider what Captain Young meant, and whether he was right or wrong in the view he took - it is a little difficult now, after the event and after the loss of the "Titanic," to appreciate the position that he was taking at that time. Of course, when. you have had a disaster such as this, I quite understand that it necessitates immediately that something should be done and done as speedily as possible; but you cannot in these matters make a Rule without taking into account all the various elements which naturally must affect the mercantile marine when you are going to make it.
I do not mean by that that you are to consider the cost, and say if it is too expensive, or because it involves an extra cost, therefore, the shipowner should not be called upon to do it when he is carrying passengers and emigrants, but what I mean is it is important that a public department should not harass a great industry like the shipping industry by first making one demand upon it and then making another which may mean that boats which they have provided in accordance with the Rules, we will say, in 1912, may be useless in consequence of a new Rule in 1913. That is evidently what Captain Young means by the explanation which he has given.
Then, my Lord, he goes on to tell you of the nature of the experiments and by whom they were made. They were made in the main in London and in Liverpool, and in Glasgow.
The Commissioner:
Where is this?
The Attorney-General:
Your Lordship will find that at Question 23295.
The Commissioner:
Yes, I have it. They were, I suppose, experiments?
The Attorney-General:
Yes, with boats. I will give your Lordship the dates first: February, 1911. There were some experiments then which led to the question formulated to the Committee in April, 1911. That of course is before the reference to the Committee. He says: "'The London Principal Officer forwarded on April 19th"' - I am reading about ten lines down in that question - "'A report respecting defective boats on certain vessels after only a few months' use, and it was mentioned that there was a tendency to build boats with too great a depth in order to increase the cubic capacity. The Board thereupon wrote to the Advisory Committee on 17th May, asking whether it would be advisable to prescribe a maximum depth for boats, compared with their breadth, and if so, what that proportion should be.' I may state here this is the preliminary investigation which preceded the experiments which were inaugurated after my assertions."
Continued >
