Page 133 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 23 - 26

with a variation in the freeboard there may be a variation in the height of the bulkhead? - Yes. 24308. What was their application? - Their application, in the first place, was merely a formal one for the assignment of a freeboard. 24309. In reply to that application you assigned them a freeboard? - Not at once. 24310. I did not say at once? - Yes. 24311. After some discussion you assigned them a freeboard? - Yes. 24312. What was the freeboard that you assigned them? - Do you desire the freeboard in feet and inches? Mr. Edwards: Yes, please, because I want to get the variation suggested. The Attorney-General: I am told you have all the material correspondence that there is with reference to freeboard. Mr. Edwards: I have the material correspondence, but there may be some other letters. The Attorney-General: My friend, Mr. Clement Edwards, will see that he has got them there, and I make no objection to their being produced. The Commissioner: Very well, you have them all now, so that you can look at them as much as you like. Mr. Edwards: I think, perhaps, my Lord, it might be a saving of time, if Mr. Archer has all these letters, if they are simply handed over, and I will look through them during the luncheon interval, and get rid of the other points with Mr. Archer. The Commissioner: I think that is a very wise thing to do, and there is no reason why you should not do it. Mr. Edwards: Will Mr. Archer kindly hand me, then, the correspondence relating to the bulkheads. The Commissioner: Just hand the bundle of correspondence, relating to the freeboard and bulkheads, to Mr. Edwards. (The correspondence was handed to Mr. Edwards.) 24313. (Mr. Edwards.) We will leave this bulkhead question entirely for the moment. I should like to ask you whether, when it was first suggested that there were going to be some ships of the type of the “Olympic” and the “Titanic” built, you were called upon or whether, in fact, you did give any special consideration to the problem of the much greater size in relation to safety? - No. 24314. No special consideration of that sort took place at any time? - No. 24315. Did you think that scantlings which were right and proper for ships of the size of the “Adriatic” would be right and proper in a ship of the size of the “Titanic”? - Pardon me, Sir, I thought you were referring to bulkheads. 24316. No, I said I had left bulkheads entirely? - I beg your pardon. 24317. I now ask you whether, as a responsible official for passing the construction of the hull of the ship you gave any consideration to the problem of the much greater size of ships, such as the “Titanic,” in relation to safety? - Oh, yes, certainly. 24318. In what form, did that problem come before you? - The matter came up in this way, that under the Tables of Freeboard, the loadline Tables, which we use for assigning the freeboard of a vessel, the strength of the vessel has to be taken into account. The question of strength came up in this way. Under the loadline Tables approved by the Board of Trade the question of strength has to be considered before a loadline or freeboard is assigned to a vessel, and there is a certain standard laid down in the Freeboard Tables. 24319. Do the Freeboard Tables to which you refer lay down standards which would cover ships above 26,000 tons? - Oh, yes. 24320. Have you a copy of those Tables? - Yes. 24321. Was that Table C? - This is the whole book. Table C is included in it. 24322. Are there scantlings in that book for ships between 26,000 tons and 46,000 tons? - Not