Page 179 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 23 - 26

that they ought to amend their requirements, and not this Committee. Mr. Spencer: No; I think that is very definite. Mr. Royden: I do not know if anybody has tried to convince the Board of Trade. The Chairman: I am told the ‘Mauretania’ did approach the Board with a view of satisfying it, but for some reason even she failed.” The Commissioner: What happened apparently was, according to the Attorney-General, that the Board of Trade made some suggestions when the plans of the “Mauretania” were put before it, and the result of those suggestions was that the application was not persevered with. The Attorney-General: They asked for certain calculations. 24811. (Mr. Edwards.) If you turn to the next page you will see that Mr. Matthews, the Secretary, refers you to a letter on the subject. - I had forgotten that. It is just the last three lines of that page. “A copy of the Committee’s Report is enclosed, and the recommendations which it contained were adopted at once by the Board of Trade as their requirements for the exemptions under Rule 12. These recommendations are still insisted on, but I may mention that during the past five years only one application (s.s. ‘Mauretania’) has been made in the case of a foreign- going steamer for the reduction of life-saving appliances allowed by the Rule, and as the recommendations of the Committee were not fully complied with in that case the application was subsequently abandoned.” The Commissioner: That seems to me to agree with what the Attorney-General has said. That is accurate. 24812. (Mr. Edwards.) I notice that you, Sir Norman, in your remarks there, speak of these Board of Trade requirements, Rule 12, as being unreasonable? - No, I do not say that - I say “if it is unreasonable.” We were told by the builders; we were told by Mr. Carlisle; we were told by Mr. Royden, whose ship, the “Mauretania,” had not passed, that they did not think the particular requirements, the particular contrivances to attain the end, were the best possible, and that they were not reasonable. 24813. Then you yourself, your Committee as I understand it, have not been required to advise the Marine Department of the Board of Trade as to the reasonableness of those requirements in regard to efficient watertight compartments? - No, we suggested that they should appoint a Committee of equal standing to Sir Edward Harland’s Committee. We are not capable of dealing with that question. 24814. There is just one point, in fairness to Mr. Carlisle, that I want to call your attention to, and that is this: Is it not a fact that you opposed his recommendations as to an increase in the number of boats, on the ground that it involved the employment of a larger number of crew? - That I did? 24815. Yes, that you did? - I, personally? 24816. Yes, you personally? - It is incorrect. Mr. Edwards: I will refer you to the Minute in a moment. The Commissioner: There must be a great many of them. Mr. Edwards: This, my Lord, is the Shorthand Note, and I have only had an opportunity of glancing at it since the Witness went into the box. 24817. (The Commissioner.) But somebody at the side of you had apparently found the passage. Is there a difficulty in finding it again? Do you know it, Sir Norman? - I have no recollection of it, my Lord. 24818. (Mr. Edwards.) Will you turn to page 21? - Yes. 24819. You will find it at the top of the page. “Mr. Carlisle: Yes, I think if you look at the model you will see there would be room in the ‘Olympic’ and the ‘Britannic’ for three or four more sets of davits on each side? Mr. Ogilvie: And it must be remembered that we are talking of boats to be constructed with these Regulations in view. Mr. Rowe: I should like to see that measured on the plan. The well openings and the hatchway openings in the ship would be