Page 29 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 23 - 26

22957. You think it would be desirable to carry at least two? - Yes. 22958. And the scale you had provided, was it prepared on a calculation based on that assumption, that two or three would be necessary? - More or less, yes. 22959. And if, although in opposition to your opinion, and presumably to your advice, the lifeboat accommodation is increased, I presume it follows that the manning, so far as deckhands is concerned must be altered and the number increased? - Yes, that is so. 22960. You have said in answer to Mr. Aspinall that if fewer boats had been carried on the “Titanic” you might have had a larger number of people saved? - I did - there might have been, I said. I did not say there would have been, but there probably would have been. 22961. On what do you base that statement? - For the simple reason that, knowing they had so many boats to trust to, they probably sent the first lot away not fully loaded. I do not want to criticise the officers or the Master of the ship at all, but I assume it is probable that that may have been the case; whereas if they had had fewer boats they would have taken good care that they utilised them to the fullest extent. 22962. How can you make such an assumption in view of the fact that the “Titanic” did not carry sufficient lifeboats to carry all the people on board. Even if they had been filled to their utmost capacity, there must have still have been a large number of people left on board the “Titanic”? - Certainly, a certain percentage must be. 22963. Does not that dispose of the consideration for occupying the boats to the full extent that you spoke of? - Yes, it does. 22964. Then there is nothing in this argument of yours? - Oh, yes, there is. In my opinion, there is. 22965. That more people would have been saved if there had been fewer boats? - That is my opinion. That is all I can tell you. 22966. I think your statement comes to this, that you do not see any reason to have a scale of lifeboat accommodation? - Not beyond the present scale. 22967. Do you know that one reason for having your scale, even such as it is, is to meet the requirements of emigrant ships, passenger ships going to foreign countries? - Yes. 22968. You know that a British ship taking passengers to America has to conform, to some extent, with American requirements? - The American requirements, up to my time of leaving the Department, were our requirements. Therefore, when our requirements were met, the American requirements were met. 22969. I think you mean that the American requirements for British ships - ? - The American requirements recognise ours as equally effective, and therefore our ships were not interfered with on the other side. 22970. Is not this the case, that the American requirements, even before the “Titanic” disaster, provided a scale for American ships registered in America which would give greater accommodation than the scale provided in this country by our Board of Trade? - That I cannot remember. I only know that they recognised ours as equally effective as theirs. 22971. And that by a convention between this country and America the American nautical authorities recognised the certificates given by the Board of Trade? - Quite so. 22972. And one reason for increasing the scale and paying attention to it is to conform with the laws and requirements of foreign countries. Now I want to ask you a question on the manning of ships. Has the attention of the Board of Trade been directed by the Advisory Committee to the importance of having a manning scale? - I believe so, two or three times. 22973. And is it the fact that, in spite of that recommendation, no manning scale has been set up? - There is no manning scale, but there is a guiding instruction to the Surveyors as to what kind of undermanning is pronounced as unseaworthiness. 22974. But nothing beyond what the former Witness has told us - you heard his evidence? -