Page 86 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 19 - 22

21219. (Mr. Laing.) I do not know, my Lord. The Witness: May I suggest the heights be given above the base line when a comparison is to be made - the base line to the bottom of the keel. That is the only fair comparison; “decks” are not a fair comparison. The Commissioner: I should have thought the proper way to ascertain it was to ask what is the height above the waterline. 21220. (Mr. Laing.) I have been taking decks; I have not taken it in heights. (To the Witness.) Do you know sufficient of the plan of the “Titanic” to know whether the heights between the decks are the same as on your ships? - No, I have never measured. The Commissioner: We were told the heights were 8 feet, were we not? I am told they vary. 21221. (Mr. Laing.) Yes, my Lord. The Witness: The heights above the waterline are these: Taking the waterline to be 33 feet, the height of No. 1 bulkhead is 34 feet above the waterline, and taking the No. 2 bulkhead 23 feet above the waterline; the next ones, 22 feet, 20, 19, 17, 17, 17, 18, 19, 22. 21222. That is fore and aft? - That is fore and aft, my Lord. 21223. (The Commissioner.) I want to ask you two or three questions. We know how the “Titanic” was built; it was designed by Harland and Wolff and built practically by them without any control by the White Star Company? - Yes. 21224. But the “Lusitania” and the “Mauretania” were designed by the Cunard Company? - That is so; principally by them. 21225. Principally by them, and the builders were directed by them to build according to their design? - Yes, my Lord. 21226. Now were the plans for your two boats submitted in the ordinary way to the Board of Trade? - They were submitted to Lloyd’s and from Lloyd’s I believe to the Board of Trade. 21227. They were submitted to Lloyd’s? - They were submitted to Lloyd’s. 21228. And they were also submitted to the Board of Trade? - Yes, I believe so. 21229. Were they also submitted to the Admiralty? - They were done in conjunction with the Admiralty people. 21230. Very well. Then they were boats which were designed according to the desires or requirements of the Admiralty? - Up to a certain extent, yes. 21231. Did that extent include these watertight bulkheads that you have talked about? - The longitudinal bulkheads? 21232. Yes? - No, my Lord. 21233. Did those requirements include the transverse bulkheads? - The transverse bulkheads, yes. 21234. That is the peculiar feature of those two boats? - Yes 21235. Let me understand. Which bulkheads was it the Admiralty stipulated for? - The Admiralty did not stipulate for any bulkheads as long as it passed the Bulkheads Committee’s requirements with regard to two compartments. 21236. What Bulkheads Committee are you talking about? - 1891. 21237. Yes; but I am talking about the Admiralty. What was it that the Admiralty required to be in this ship, in connection with bulkheads, which would not have been required by the Board of Trade by Lloyd’s? - I do not quite follow that. 21238. Well, were there any bulkheads, or was there any provision for bulkheads, in the “Mauretania” or the “Lusitania” which would not have been there if these boats had not been built for Admiralty purposes? - No, my Lord, there were no such bulkheads. They would have been built just the same whether built for the Admiralty or not, only the plans were duplicated to the Admiralty and received their approval. A great many people have to do with it. 21239. What I want to know is this: Did you put in the design for watertight bunkers? - That