Page 126 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 23 - 26

regulated on a tonnage basis, but rather that a boat capacity should be required in all for a certain proportion of the total number of persons carried on board the vessel, including passengers and crew. 24258. (Mr. Butler Aspinall.) Anything else? - I think, further, that before the definite percentage of boat capacity to the number of persons on board is determined it would be wise that a committee of experts should be appointed to endeavour to devise some better method of putting boats into the water than at present exists, the present method being to lower them from davits by falls, so that the boat is free to swing about and is very liable to be dashed against the side of the vessel. That is all I have to recommend. Examined by Mr. SCANLAN. 24259. I see, Mr. Archer, that this minute of the 28th February, 1911, is signed by you? - Yes. 24260. It was the view, then, you had expressed to the Marine Department of the Board of Trade? - Yes. 24261. If effect had been given to your view, the “Titanic” would have been provided with boat accommodation for how many people? - Roughly speaking, about 2,493, I think. 24262. (The Commissioner.) Where do you get that figure from? - In the Table, my Lord, the second line from the bottom. The Attorney-General: He is taking 10 percent of the cubic capacity. That is the last figure but one on the extreme right-hand column of page 18. 24263. (The Commissioner.) I do not quite see how that fits in with this statement on page 17: “If the vessel be divided into efficient watertight compartments to the Board’s satisfaction” - as the “Titanic” was - “the total boat equipment would be, say, 36 boats of 21,313 cubic feet.” That would represent 2,130 people, would it not? - Yes, my Lord. 24264. Then how do you make it 2,493? Are the two statements consistent? - The vessel had not been divided into watertight compartments to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade, my Lord. Mr. Scanlan: May I suggest that this is how the difference arises? If you take 10 as the divisor for all the boats, you would have accommodation for something like 2,131; but I rather gathered from this gentleman that he says some of them would be boats of a class for which 10 is the proper divisor, and in other cases eight is the proper divisor. 24265. (The Commissioner.) Is that so? - I beg your pardon, my Lord, that is so. That is where the difference comes in. 24266. That makes the difference? - Yes. The Attorney-General: I have not seen that before. Mr. Scanlan: In his evidence he has stated so. The Attorney-General: That will not account for the difference between the two tables. 24267. (Mr. Scanlan.) You would have, altogether, 24 boats? - 24 boats. 24268. Some of them would be of Class A and some of Classes B or C? - They might be of Class C or Class D. Mr. Scanlan: Perhaps you would work it out for me - it is very easy to compute it in figures - and let us see how you get at the accommodation for 2,493 persons. (The Witness commenced to compute the figures.) The Commissioner: What is happening now. Mr. Scanlan: The Witness is making up a calculation, your Lordship. The Commissioner: How long is it to take? Mr. Scanlan: Perhaps he will be able to tell your Lordship. The Commissioner: Cannot you ask some other questions in the meantime? Mr. Scanlan: He cannot calculate, my Lord, on one subject and answer questions on another. Perhaps he might give it afterwards. The Commissioner: I suggest that you should pass on to something else. 24269. (Mr. Scanlan.) Very well, my Lord. (To the Witness.) This Report of yours, this Minute of yours,