British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry
Day 35
Final Arguments, cont.
Then he goes on to deal with what happened on the 19th. "On the 19th May the Advisory Committee applied, semi-officially, for particulars. The Advisory Committee replied to the Board on the various matters under consideration on the 4th of July.'" - that is the Report of the Committee - "'and as regards the proportions of ship's boats, recommended the alteration of the life-saving appliances Rules to provide that in future the depth of lifeboats should not exceed 44 percent of their breadth.' We had this the other day my Lord. 'This recommendation was submitted to the Principal Ship Surveyor on the 8th July.'"
Now your Lordship will see what we are dealing with in the Report. Up to now it has been the investigation before the Report. "The recommendation was submitted to the Principal Ship Surveyor on the 8th July, and on the 11th July he suggested that Principal Officers might test different types of boats with a full complement of persons and report the result of the tests with reference to height of gunwale, stability, and the use of the oars.' This second series of experiments was in consequence of the assertions which I have referred to. 'This suggestion was approved on the 15th July, requesting that practical tests should be made by Officers at London, Liverpool and Glasgow on the 21st July, suggesting that practical tests should be made with a view to determining - (a.) a standard type of boat, (b.) a maximum depth, (c.) a maximum proportion of depth to breadth, and that full details should be given, with drawings of the best and worst forms tested, and notes on the height of gunwales, use of the oars, and the question of stability. The first report was received from the London Principal Officers on August 25th, and related to two boats that had been tested." I will not trouble your Lordship with reading the result of the test. He gives the particulars in detail: (a.) That is London, then (b.), about 15 lines down: "A further Report from the London Principal Officer was received on September 19th and gave results of tests as follows." Those were tests which were made by Captain Clarke at Southampton. Various examinations of boats which he had made and which had continued apparently up to September 15th; and again on September 16th Mr. Penney of London made a suggestion that the divisor should be 12 instead of 10 or 8. That exhausts London. The last of the Reports is September16th.
So that what we have got is that after the report of the Advisory Committee of the 4th July, which, at any rate, made some recommendations with reference to the questions submitted to them about the construction of the boats, and the dimensions of the boats that were hereafter to be used, according to Board of Trade requirements, the London Principal Surveyor made his experiments by September 15th. From Glasgow, on November 3rd, the report was received. It is at the bottom of page 644. "On November 3rd the Glasgow Principal Officer forwarded reports of tests, as follows." He gives a series of reports which had been made in October and the beginning of November, and then in the right-hand column, about five lines down, there is the report from the Liverpool Principal Officer, dated 11th November; it was stated to have been delayed owing to the recent labour troubles. "The Principal Officer forwarded details by Mr. Jenkins, the Senior Ship Surveyor, of eight tests that he had made." Then he goes into the particulars of those tests. Then, if your Lordship will look eight lines further down. "A further report was received from the Liverpool Principal Officer, dated November 15th, with remarks by two nautical Surveyors, Messrs. Rice and Jenkins. They recommended a minimum depth of 3 feet 4 inches, or breadth by 4, and a breadth of 3.5. This was a mere matter of discussion, which we went into, and did not quite agree with." Then he goes on: "A summary of all these reports was drawn up and completed on January 4th, 1912, and the Principal Ship Surveyor was asked for his observations on the whole question."
Now may I pause there for a minute and see where we are at this date. From that time, that is from July, 1911, until this period of January 4th, 1912, the experiments had been made of which the last report comes in on November 15th, 1911. They are all considered, and the summary of them is drawn up and then presented to the Principal Ship Surveyor, who is asked for his observations upon it. "The Principal Ship Surveyor was away ill at this time, and the matter was taken up by Mr. Daniel, an Officer in his department acting as his deputy, who reviewed the reports of the Surveyors and their suggestions. He replied on the 27th January."
Then there is the substance of his report, "the question of the form of boat is important. Boats are generally built 'to the eye,' with simply a midship mould. It has been found that boats of the same dimensions differ considerably in actual carrying capacity. Mr. Daniel therefore suggested the following method: A boat should not be regarded as capable of accommodating the number of persons for which it measures according to the Rules unless it has half an inch of sheer per foot of length, and unless the half-girth of midships is at least 90 percent of the sum of the depth and half-breadth." I need not trouble your Lordship with the details of these dimensions which they were considering there, "a draft amendment of the General Rules on these lines was prepared on 1st February" - that is the draft amendment of the Rules which were to carry out the report of the Committee which had been made in July, 1911 - "and it was decided to submit the matter again to the Advisory Committee. Memoranda on other subjects were at the same time being prepared, and eventually the whole of the subjects that had been under consideration were, on the decision of Sir Walter Howell (4th April.) embodied in one letter, which was addressed to the Committee on 16th April." Now, my Lord, the effect of that is to show that the reason of the delay in a Rule being formulated is that they were waiting, first of all, for experiments to be made which had been delayed, certainly partly, in Liverpool, for the reason given there, owing to labour trouble, and then eventually all these matters had to be considered by the Principal Ship Surveyor, and the draft Rules are formulated on 1st February, 1912.
The Commissioner:
There is this memorandum at page 28.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, that is right, my Lord. Those are the draft Rules.
The Commissioner:
Then, on the 4th April, what happened?
The Attorney-General:
On the 4th April, after consideration of the various matters pointed out to Captain Young, the order is given that the letter shall be written, and, of course, it is an unfortunate thing that that letter was not written immediately, but your Lordship has had all the evidence before you about that, and it is not open to any doubt, that the order was given on the 4th April, although, in fact, the letter was not sent out until the 16th.
The Commissioner:
I am quite satisfied with the explanation given about it.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, it is quite clear. Your Lordship saw the original documents which were produced, and, fortunately, one is able to remove any misapprehension with regard to that, because quite naturally it might have been thought that that was only sent out in consequence of what had happened. The Easter holiday had intervened, and apparently the letter was not sent immediately.
Now, my Lord, that brought us to the 16th April, when the letter was sent, to which attention has been called, and which undoubtedly is an important letter.
The Commissioner:
Yes, but you have now got to a date after the "Titanic" disaster.
The Attorney-General:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
Has anything been done up to now?
The Attorney-General:
No. It is quite right to say nothing has been done; I mean no Rule has been made at present.
The Commissioner:
Are you going to wait for the Report of the other Committee?
The Attorney-General:
I am going to tell your Lordship what happened with regard to it. The vessels first of all have agreed and the passenger-carrying vessels of 15,000 tons and upwards have agreed now, as was stated by the President and also was stated in evidence here, to place a sufficient number of boats on board to carry the number of passengers on the vessel. That is the position. Your Lordship heard what happened with regard to the "Olympic." I do not know whether your Lordship saw it when you were there, but we did certainly and a great number of boats were on the deck, principally Berthon boats that had been provided in order to meet what was the very natural anxiety of the public at the time, after the "Titanic" disaster.
The Commissioner:
What I asked was this. Are you going to wait for the Report of the other Committee?
The Attorney-General:
That must depend, my Lord. Of course, the Board of Trade has not known up to now whether your Lordship is going to report or not upon it. I mean to say whether, as a result of this Report they may be going to alter the Rules. I do not know, and it is not for me to say, but I should very much doubt whether those Rules would be sufficient now.
The Commissioner:
Have you read them?
The Attorney-General:
Yes, I have.
The Commissioner:
I have not. I know nothing about them.
The Attorney-General:
I have read them, and I have read the scale.
The Commissioner:
I do not know what it is that you expect me to report which would affect this question. What is it that you expect me to do that will affect this question of the Rules?
The Attorney-General:
Of course, your Lordship may come to the conclusion that you will not say anything about the number of boats that ought to be carried, but I rather gathered from what your Lordship said at an early stage that you did not intend to say what number of boats should be carried, but nevertheless your Lordship may come to the conclusion that a greater number of boats should be carried, not only than were in fact carried, but that it was suggested should be carried in the recommendations of the Committee, and your Lordship sees from any point of view the result of all this evidence must throw a considerable amount of light upon it.
The Commissioner:
People outside say the Board of Trade are always waiting for somebody else to do something for them.
The Attorney-General:
Of course, the Board of Trade may make a Rule at once. It ought not to make a Rule at once, but then the difficulty of it is, I should have thought, that in a panic it ought not to do it.
The Commissioner:
Clearly not.
The Attorney-General:
And it ought not to make a Rule which is going to affect the whole of the shipping trade without the fullest consideration; and further, it ought not to make a Rule of this character without taking the advice of experts, and therefore it must refer it to a Committee. I mean it ought not to depend upon its own officials, and at least Parliament did not think so, because that is why it appointed the Committee, but whether Parliament is right or not I am not going to say.
The Commissioner:
You must act at the end of it, of course.
The Attorney-General:
You must act, certainly.
The Commissioner:
You must act at some time.
The Attorney-General:
Certainly; but you must get advice before you act; and as in this particular case, as your Lordship will remember, what happened was that Rules were formulated, and of course if it had not been for the disaster which has taken place, the Rules, no doubt, would have been in force.
The Commissioner:
They first of all formulated Rules between 1894 and 1911. First of all in 1911 they came to the conclusion that some change in their old Rules was desirable.
The Attorney-General:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
Then they communicated with four of their best men, and those four gentlemen in course of time bring forward new Rules, different of course, but they all agree in one matter, that an increase in the number of boats is desirable, and after those Reports are made, without sending those Reports to the Advisory Committee, they write to the Advisory Committee, and the Advisory Committee having considered the matter, refer it to a sub-committee. That sub-committee then considers the question that is referred to them and reports to the Advisory Committee, and that Report is sent on to the Board of Trade, and then the Board of Trade tell them that they cannot act, we must have a number of experiments, and then there are a number of experiments; then after the experiments are made, after a considerable interval, comes a letter. But it seems to me very strange that nothing was done in the interval, and nothing has been done even yet.
The Attorney-General:
Yes; but your Lordship will remember that the Committee only makes recommendations with regard to depth and breadth. They do not formulate Rules.
The Commissioner:
No, not at all. It is no part of their duty to do so.
The Attorney-General:
But then the Board of Trade formulates the Rules which provide in detail for the dimensions of the boats which are to be constructed. Those are the draft Rules which are at pages 28 and 29, and which go into detail, and which, of course, can only be done by the Board of Trade, and as they thought ought only to be done by them after they had had experiments made by their Principal Officers in Liverpool, Glasgow and London. When they got those reports then, did they formulate the Rules? Then having got those Rules, they tell the Committee what they are going to do.
The Commissioner:
How do you explain the delay between 1890 and 1911?
The Attorney-General:
1894 your Lordship means.
The Commissioner:
Yes, 1894 and 1911. During the whole of that time apparently ships were increasing in size; they were carrying more and more people?
The Attorney-General:
Yes; but the view taken always was that the number of boats was sufficient as in the first instance, when the Rule was first formulated.
The Commissioner:
But the question is, was that a reasonable view to take. It evidently was not the right view; and the shipowners themselves recognised that it was not the right view, because they themselves increased them far beyond the statutory requirements.
The Attorney-General:
I quite agree; but it was the view taken as the result of the Committee which sat in those days.
The Commissioner:
Which days?
The Attorney-General:
1890 and 1894, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
Yes, but then things change.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, that is quite right, my Lord; but at the same time, since 1894, when the Rules were formulated for 10,000 tons and upwards, you have got vessels much above that tonnage.
The Commissioner:
The biggest boat in those days, if I recollect rightly, did not exceed 13,000 tons.
The Attorney-General:
Not quite 13,000. The "Lucania" was one. And then the provision was made, of course, that anything over and above 10,000 tons would have to carry this particular number of boats, and there it was left, and nothing further was done. The view seems to have been that as we were proceeding, and vessels were being constructed which were better equipped as regards watertight compartments, the larger vessels that were being constructed had the best provision for watertight compartments, and that, therefore, they were as unsinkable as it was possible to make vessels according to the view that was held up to that time, and it appears that with the larger vessels carrying passengers and emigrants, it was thought that the vessels were practically unsinkable. That is the reason, as far as I am able to make out.
The Commissioner:
The reason for the long delay between 1894 and 1911 is stated in the evidence of Sir Alfred Chalmers at page 630. Mr. Aspinall was examining the Witness and it begins thus: [22875] "I considered the matter very closely from time to time. I first of all considered the record of the trade - that is to say, the record of the casualties - and to see what immunity from loss there was. I found it was the safest mode of travel in the world, and I thought it was neither right nor the duty of a State department to impose regulations upon that mode of travel as long as the record was a clean one." I do not read the whole of it, but it goes on much further; however, that reason was as forcible at any time before the disaster to the "Titanic" as during those years that he is talking about. I do not see why, unless the "Titanic" disaster had happened they should have altered the watertight compartments according to that view. But there is this to be said, Mr. Attorney - I do not know whether you will agree with me - that if they had made Rules, the Rules would not in all probability have provided for a larger number of boats that there were in fact carried on the "Titanic." That is so, is it not?
The Attorney-General:
Oh, yes.
The Commissioner:
So that it may be said that the absence of the Rules in no way aggravated the calamity that happened. At the same time the delay that took place does require some explanation. Perhaps it is in that evidence of Sir Alfred Chalmers. It strikes the imagination at once! Rules made in 1894, laying down how many boats should be carried by ships up to 10,000 tons and upwards; nothing done until the "Titanic" disaster, and nothing done even now.
The Attorney-General:
Well, I do not think there is any complaint to be made about what has happened since April.
The Commissioner:
Sir Alfred Chalmers was rather emphatic about it.
The Attorney-General:
I know. He took a very strong view.
The Commissioner:
He did, and Captain Young said he did not agree.
The Attorney-General:
Quite, and that was the position. Sir Alfred Chalmers was of opinion that it was unnecessary, and he adhered to that view when he was in the Box; and at any rate that was the opinion that he had formed.
The Commissioner:
It is not perhaps quite fair to ask you the question, and, therefore, I cannot expect you to answer it, but do you think that there was no delay?
The Attorney-General:
Delay there certainly was.
The Commissioner:
Unnecessary delay.
The Attorney-General:
During what period my Lord? If you are asking during the period from 1894 to 1911, the only answer I think one can make - you may accept it or not, you may think that it was wrong on somebody's part or not, I do not know, - but the answer is made, and the view that was taken about it was that it was not necessary to provide for it. That was the reason apparently why they had not provided for it right away through.
The Commissioner:
If it was not necessary then why is it considered necessary now?
The Attorney-General:
There is a little more light thrown upon it now. It never was thought that you would have to take off the whole of your passengers by your boats and of course it is very easy to make reflections upon what the Board of Trade was doing with regard to this, but the same view was taken abroad.
The Commissioner:
What occurred to me was that the Board of Trade may be said to have been much too cautious. To be very cautious is a very good thing, but you can be too cautious.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, but what I was remarking upon was that even in Germany, with regard to which your Lordship, of course, asked questions as to what they had done, and where they did have a scale over and above the scale that we have here, still their scale did not provide for everybody who was to be carried on board the vessel.
The Commissioner:
I quite understand that.
The Attorney-General:
Of course, I agree. I pointed out in the course of the case that it was a bigger scale, undoubtedly, than the one that would be required here.
The Commissioner:
Now you cannot finish today?
The Attorney-General:
I am afraid not, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
Obviously, you cannot. When shall we see you again?
The Attorney-General:
On Wednesday morning, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
Very well. And you will promise, if I do not interrupt you, to finish on Wednesday?
The Attorney-General:
I do not like to make a promise with that condition, my Lord, because, if I may say so, I welcome interruptions of all kinds, but I will promise to finish, notwithstanding your Lordship's interruptions, if I may put it in that way.
(Adjourned to Wednesday next at 10.30 o'clock.)
