Page 182 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 19 - 22

The Commissioner: Which had supervened. 22418. (The Attorney-General.) Yes, and that therefore when the increased tonnage arose that was a thing to be taken into account. Of course, I agree nobody suggested it until this came into existence, but in contrasting 1894 and 1904 it does become an element. The figures which you gave me yesterday have shown us what, in fact, were the casualties which had occurred during the years 1892 to 1901, and I suppose that could have been ascertained up to 1904, or very nearly to 1904? - Oh, yes. 22419. All those matters were taken into consideration? - Yes, I am quite sure they were. 22420. And as a consequence no alteration was made? - Yes, that is so. 22421. Was it thought that wireless telegraphy was a very important consideration in determining whether or not you required an extended scale? - It was certainly one of the things discussed. I think wireless telegraphy really came into practical use in about 1907. I know it was commented on very much in the case of the “Republic,” which happened in 1909. It was of the greatest service there, I remember. 22422. The Advisory Committee was invited in April, 1911, to advise on this very question of the necessity for increasing the requirements under the scale, was it not? - Quite so. The Attorney-General: We have referred to what happened with reference to that, but I am not sure whether your Lordship had it clearly brought before you. Some reference was made to it when we were examining Mr. Carlisle. The Commissioner: Yes, I remember. The Attorney-General: Of course this is important, because I am now coming to what happened in 1911. The Commissioner: You are coming to the document that Mr. Carlisle, among others, signed? The Attorney-General: Yes. The Commissioner: Apparently, according to his own admission, very foolishly. The Attorney-General: In the document that will be printed, your Lordship will have that included, also with the terms of reference. (The document was handed to the Commissioner.) (To the Witness.) On the 4th of April, 1911, you, as representing the Board of Trade, wrote to the Secretary of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee, by direction of the Board of Trade, asking that the Advisory Committee should consider certain questions. The one I particularly want to call attention to is this. Questions had been asked in the House of Commons, and this is stated, this is the letter of the 4th of April which precedes: “The Board are of the opinion that the Table in the Appendix to the Rules should be extended upwards in the form indicated in the accompanying scale, so as to provide for vessels of tonnage up to 50,000 tons gross and upwards. It appears to the Board that the number of boats and the boat capacity need not necessarily increase in a regular proportion according to the increase in tonnage, and that due regard should be paid to what is reasonable and practicable in passenger steamers exceeding 10,000 tons. The attention of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee is invited to the Rule of the 19th April, 1910, as to the stowage of boats required to be placed under davits, and to the fact that the capacity of the additional boats and/or rafts required by division A, class 1, Clause (d), of the Rules is governed by the capacity of the boats required to be placed under davits. I am to state that the Board would be obliged if the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee would be so good as to suggest in what manner the scale (See accompanying copy.) should be continued upwards, having due regard to the considerations indicated above.” The Commissioner: That was 1911. The Attorney-General: The 4th April, 1911: “I am further to state that the Board would be glad to learn whether the Advisory Committee are of opinion that Rule 12 should or should not be revised so as to exempt altogether from the requirements of additional boats and/or rafts those vessels which are divided into efficient watertight compartments to the satisfaction of the Board