Page 108 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 14 - 18

17925. So that if those who were responsible for ordering the lowering of No. 8 desired a full complement of passengers for it, they had the passengers there on deck ready to come in? - Yes. 17926. Was there any other officer superintending the lowering of No. 8? - I did not notice. 17927. Except Mr. Wilde? - Only the Captain, he came there; he came there and lowered the forward falls - he assisted in doing so. 17928. (The Attorney-General.) Which boat was this? - No. 8. 17929. (The Commissioner.) As I understand, you crossed over from the starboard side to the port side? - Yes, I went to my proper boat. 17930. (Mr. Scanlan.) Then you have stated that the crew you had for the boat consisted of two and yourself? - Four altogether. 17931. There were three in addition to you? - Yes. 17932. Who were the other three? - Two were sailors and one worked in the kitchen, and myself. 17933. Two sailors and a kitchen hand? - Yes. [There were no Questions 17934-39.] 17940. Was that crew sufficient to manage this boat in the sea? - Yes, I think it was. 17941. Did not you have to get the assistance of some of your passengers? - It was not really necessary to have their assistance; they helped, to keep themselves warm. 17942. You did get their assistance in any case? - Yes, they volunteered. 17943. Did they give you assistance in the lowering? - No. 17944. In keeping the boat off the side? - No. 17945. Had you any difficulty there whatever? - No. 17946. (The Commissioner.) There was a list to port, was there not? - Yes. The Commissioner: They would not want to keep off the side; the list would keep them off. 17947. (Mr. Scanlan.) Yes. (To the Witness.) But you needed someone to steer, did you not? - The Countess of Rothes volunteered to steer. 17948. If she had not been steering, you would have required someone permanently? - Yes. The Commissioner: Never mind. You are going too far. If she was not there and if he was not there, does not help me. 17949. (Mr. Scanlan - To the Witness.) Did you consider it necessary for the rowing of the boat to have four men, two on each side, at the oars, in addition to the services of one person at the tiller? - If we had had more it would have been better for us, naturally. Mr. Scanlan: It would have been better. The Attorney-General: “Better for us,” he said. 17950. (The Commissioner - To the Witness.) Can you tell me now what better would have happened than that you were saved, if you had had more? You were saved? - Yes. 17951. Then what better would have happened to you if you had had three or four more; you would have kept out three or four more passengers, but what better would have happened to you than did happen? - We might have pulled quicker to this vessel - that is all I thought. 17952. Do you mean you could have pulled this distance to this vessel? - We thought so when we left the ship, Sir. 17953. (Mr. Scanlan.) I want your opinion on this point, as a man of some experience. Would four men in ordinary circumstances be sufficient to row a big boat like No. 8? The Commissioner: I know what the answer to that would be; the answer is, No. 17954. (Mr. Scanlan - To the Witness.) It would have been insufficient? - It would not be sufficient. The Commissioner: But it happened to be sufficient on this night. 17955. (Mr. Scanlan.) In specially calm weather, my Lord. (To the Witness.) In ordinary circumstances how many men do you think would be sufficient to row a boat like this? - I cannot