Page 178 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 19 - 22

difficulty? - I prefer that the professional officer should answer professional questions. 22388. (The Attorney-General.) To whom are you referring? - To Sir Alfred Chalmers, the professional adviser of the Board of Trade then. 22389. Whatever the reason may be, the one thing that is established by this is that at this time, in 1894, when you had not only the “Lucania” but the “Campania” also with a tonnage of just upon 13,000 tons -? - They were nearly the same tonnage. 22390. The Committee thought that the number of boats required apparently should be the 16 mentioned in the scale? - Quite so. The Commissioner: Can you tell me how this Table would be altered? What procedure would have to be adopted for the purpose of altering it? The Attorney-General: I think the Board of Trade would do it. The Commissioner: Who has the power? The Attorney-General: My impression is that the Board of Trade can do it. I think it is an administrative action which they can take at once. The Commissioner: It is an Appendix to Rules made by the Board of Trade. If they alter the Appendix they alter the Rules. How do they alter their Rules? 22391. (The Attorney-General.) I think the Rules are framed, and on the authority of the President are laid before Parliament, and lie on the Table for so many days, I think 40 days, and after that they become law. Is not that it? The Witness: That is quite right. The Attorney-General: Dealing with only the last three years preceding this year. In May, 1909, there is an alteration made in these Rules with reference to motor lifeboats. In April, 1910, there is an alteration made - I will give a reference to it later in more detail, with regard to stowage of boats in board or under davits. In June, 1911, there is another one. The Commissioner: I was wondering whether it was some cumbrous procedure. The Attorney-General: Oh, no, it is the ordinary procedure of Parliament. When there is a power given by Statute to a Department to make Rules, the Rules lie on the Table of the House, and, of course, can be dealt with by an Address to the House if objected to, and if the House does not object then they have the force of Statute within the powers of course conferred by the Statute upon the person who has made the Rules. Sir Robert Finlay: My friend, Mr. Laing, has had prepared an analysis and a consecutive statement of all that has been done with regard to this, setting out the material sections, and I think it might be of very considerable service if your Lordship would look at it, and your Lordship will say whether it might be convenient that it should be printed. It will be very useful. The Attorney-General: I should like to see it before it is dealt with, because I have a print of the same thing. We are having it printed, so that your Lordship should have the whole story. The Commissioner: Whether it is from you or Sir Robert is a matter of indifference. It would be of assistance to have it tabulated on one sheet. The Attorney-General: We had better look at it, because I think we have a good deal that Sir Robert has not. The Commissioner: Mr. Maurice Hill will look at the two, and select, impartially you know, the one which he thinks is the better. The Attorney-General: I can say nothing about it, because I have not seen it. The Commissioner: You will let me have one or the other. The Attorney-General: Yes, and it may be the two may be given. We have one which I think, so far as I know - The Commissioner: You naturally think is better than theirs. The Attorney-General: No, I do not think it is better, because I have not seen theirs. Sir Robert Finlay: My friend has not seen Mr. Laing’s work.