Page 185 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 19 - 22

The Attorney-General: That Sub-Committee consists of a number of persons who either constituted the Committee, or were nominated in accordance with the powers of the Board of Trade, according to the paragraphs which I read after reading the names of the members of the Committee. The Commissioner: For instance, it will include Mr. Carlisle, who was not one of the Committee. The Attorney-General: Yes, and Mr. Royden, who was a shipowner, and also Mr. Rome, who represented Lloyd’s Register, and Mr. Ogilvie, who represented the Institute of London Underwriters. The Commissioner: And none of those gentlemen are mentioned on the Committee. 22435. (The Attorney-General.) No, none of those four are mentioned. (To the Witness.) Why was it that on the 4th April, 1911, the Board of Trade was minded to have this scale reconsidered? What had happened in the interval? - In the interval between when? 22436. The last consideration of which you have told my Lord before April, 1911, was 1904? - Yes. 22437. Had there been an increase in the tonnage of the boats constructed during the few years preceding 1911? - Yes, I think so, considerably. 22438. Does your Lordship remember at one stage my friend, the Solicitor-General, handed in a picture with a Table showing the increase in the tonnage of the boats constructed over a period of years? The Commissioner: I do not remember it. The Attorney-General: You did have it; it was this, (Showing a picture.) only a little larger. The Commissioner: Oh, yes, we have that. 22439. (The Attorney-General.) It only dealt with the White Star Liners, but it showed the increase. (To the Witness.) The tendency during those intervening years had been towards increasing the tonnage of the vessels constructed? - Yes. 22440. It had the “Mauretania” and the “Lusitania” in it? - Yes. 22441. Which I think were over 30,000 tons? - Yes. 22442. It was about 1907 that they were built? - Yes. 22443. And subsequently to that, of course, we had the designing of the “Olympic” and the “Titanic,” which were the two largest? - Yes. 22444. It was that tendency to increase the size of the vessels that caused the Board of Trade to direct the attention of the Advisory Committee to the scale then in existence? - Quite so. 22445. (The Attorney-General.) Now, my Lord, I propose to refer to the Report of the Committee. (Copies were handed to the Court.) On the 4th July, 1911, there is a letter from the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee forwarding Report on proposed amendments of the Life-Saving Appliances Rules. “We have the honour to report that your letter of the 4th April, with reference to the minimum number of lifeboats to be carried on vessels of 10,000 tons gross tonnage and upwards and your letter of the 17th May, on the subject of the depth of lifeboats, have been very carefully considered by the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee, and that it was unanimously decided at a meeting held on the 29th ultimo to adopt the report of a Sub- Committee which was specially appointed to enquire into these questions. A copy of the Report is accordingly forwarded herewith, and the Committee desire us to suggest, for the consideration of the Board of Trade, that effect should be given to the recommendations contained in it.” That is signed by Sir Norman Hill, Chairman, and Mr. R. W. Matthew, Secretary. Am I right in this, that Mr. Matthew, who was Secretary, was in the Board of Trade? - Yes. 22446. He occupied some position, I am not quite sure what it is? - He is an Upper Division Clerk in the Board of Trade. 22447. Was there any other representative of the Board of Trade upon it? - There are the four