Page 168 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 19 - 22

Shipowners’ Association conjointly; (3) Two shipbuilders selected by the Council of the Institution of Naval Architects; (4) Three persons practically acquainted with the navigation of vessels, selected by the Shipmasters’ Societies recognised by the Board of Trade for this purpose; (5) Three persons being, or having been able bodied seamen, selected by Seamen’s Societies recognised by the Board of Trade for this purpose; (6) Two persons selected conjointly by the Committee of Lloyd’s, the Committee of Lloyd’s Register Society, and the Committee of the Institute of London Underwriters.” When one bears in mind the provisions in the Statute, it is easier to follow the constitution of the Committee which has hitherto existed. That Committee was formed by the then President of the Board of Trade, the present Lord St. Aldwyn? - That is so. 22281. I think in November, 1888? - Yes. 22282. And certain draft Rules were prepared - we may take this quite shortly - and these Rules were adopted by the Board of Trade under date of June, 1889? - Quite so. 22283. Those were the first that were formulated in consequence of this Statute? - Quite so. 22284. Those were the Rules which were eventually recommended and formed the subject of some discussion in 1890 at various dates, and were adopted, I think, in November, 1890? - They were adopted in November, 1890; I think so. 22285. Some reference was made to it yesterday? - Immediately the first Rules had been issued there was a slight revision of them, and I rather think that was what came in November, 1890. That is how it was, I think. The first Rules were early in 1890, and the revision came later. 22286. We need not pause to discuss that. There is some question. I see what you mean, in 1889 and 1890, but the new Rules presented to Parliament with regard to the exemption from the required additional number of boats, as we know, first came into force in 1890? - Yes. 22287. Now for a moment let us deal with those original Rules, because I want to ask you one or two questions about them. In the first place I notice that the scale for passenger and emigrant ships was based on gross tonnage, and not upon the number of passengers carried, and so far as we have the documents before us, that seems to have been the guiding principle ever since? - Yes. 22288. Up to the present moment? - Yes. 22289. The scale is gross tonnage, and not the number of passengers, as of course your Lordship noticed at a very early stage. We are dealing now with the years 1889 and 1890, when these Rules were drafted and eventually adopted. Had there been any scale in existence before? - There had been a slight scale, I think; I do not remember quite accurately what it was, but the Board’s Surveyors had some guidance on the subject. But this was the first statutory scale laid down. 22290. Was it on gross tonnage? - It was based on gross tonnage also, so far as my memory serves me. The Attorney-General: It is only for the purpose of history, my Lord, and nothing else, but I notice in the Statute of 1854, the earliest Merchant Shipping Statute, there the scale was registered tonnage. I only want to see exactly how it was we got registered tonnage. The Commissioner: I do not know what you are trying to do. The Attorney-General: I am trying to trace how it was that the scale was gross tonnage instead of the number of passengers. The Commissioner: It was so. The Attorney-General: Yes, and now I am seeing why it was so. The first thing I was tracing out from that was that originally apparently in 1854 the first scale we have at all (and which it is not necessary to go into further) is registered tonnage on this scale, and not gross. That is the only point. The Commissioner: By registered tonnage you mean net registered tonnage.