Page 101 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 19 - 22

I was not going to be a dog in the manger when a lot of gentlemen had come to the conclusion that this was satisfactory for the mercantile shipping. 21493. (Mr. Laing.) I do not understand it. There is your signature purporting to agree with the resolutions of the rest of the Committee? - Yes. 21494. Which, in fact, reduced the number of boats? - That they could reduce them. Yes. 21495. For the “Titanic,” although your opinion is she had not enough? - Yes. 21496. When you talk about your idea which you pressed before the Advisory Committee was that with regard to the Welin davits? - It was with the idea of taking more boats. 21497. With regard to this particular davit? - No, nothing at all. 21498. Are you interested in that davit? - I had no interest in it at the time. I took an interest in it in August, 1910 or 1911, after I left Harland and Wolff’s. I never got any interest in it until after I left Harland and Wolff’s. 21499. (The Commissioner.) Am I to understand that you are commercially interested in these Welin davits? - I was. The company was floated on the 30th of August. 21500. Are you now? - Yes, and I am now. Examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL. 21501. I want to ask you with reference to one matter. This Committee, with reference to which Mr. Laing has put some questions to you, was the Advisory Committee in reference to Life-Saving Appliances? - Yes. 21502. And it was for the purpose of advising the Board of Trade what would be required that that Advisory Committee sat? - Yes. 21503. And you knew that in the ordinary course of things at least the Advisory Committee’s Report would have much weight with the Board of Trade. You understood that? - I thought it would make them go into the matter. 21504. I am asking you because I see in this Report, which will be read later, when I come to the history of these Committees - The Commissioner: I have not heard of it, you know. The Attorney-General: I was not here, and I am not quite sure whether your Lordship’s attention was directed to this - that the Report, which recommended the extension of the table of boat requirements - Yes. 21505. Had this effect, that for the gross tonnage of a vessel of 45,000 tons and upwards the total minimum cubic contents of boats required would be 8,300. Do you follow? - No, I do not. 21506. You were dealing with the table. There was a table already in existence. You were recommending, with a number of other expert gentlemen on this Advisory Committee, an extension of that table because of the increased tonnage which either had come into existence or might? - It was rather for the ships that were afloat - for the “Mauretania” and the “Adriatic.” They were the ones that were practically considered at that meeting, as it would affect them all, any new rules that might be brought out. 21507. The gross tonnage of the vessel there - the highest requisition is 45,000 tons and upwards? - Yes. 21508. For that the requirement was to be a minimum of 16 boats under davits and a number of additional boats to be readily available for attachments to davits, eight? - Yes. 21509. Those 24 boats were to have a total minimum cubic content of 8,300 cubic feet. Do you follow? Look at it (Handing a document to the Witness.)? - Yes. 21510. That is right? - Yes. 21511. So that in point of fact the Board of Trade requirements on the “Titanic” before this report, or if this report was not acted upon, required a minimum cubic capacity -? - I do not think