Page 36 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 23 - 26

of wood or metal placed under davits (of which one on one side shall be a boat of section (A.), or section (B), and on the other side shall be a boat of section (A.), or section (B), or section (C), that the boats on each side of the ship shall be sufficient to accommodate all persons on board.” Was not that quite a necessary regulation? - Where is that? 23056. It is on page 8 of your Rules with regard to life-saving appliances, made in 1894? - What division? 23057. Class 4(A.)? - That is for passenger steamships. That is not for emigrant ships. 23058. If the boats that you have indicated were unnecessary in the case of the Titanic,” that is in excess of your scale. If it was not necessary to carry boats for all on board according to your proposition, why did not you modify this regulation by reducing the number of boats, and thereby disencumbering the decks? - Because in the one case it is a limited crew that you are providing for, and you can easily do it, and in the other case it is a large number. 23059. Is that the principle you are going on, that because you have a limited crew and a limited number of people, it is desirable to provide for them, but when you have a large crew, and a large number of people, it is not desirable? - It is not practicable. 23060. So that it is a question of practicability? - It is a question of practicability. 23061. If you were satisfied that it would be practicable to carry on one of these huge leviathans sufficient boats for all on board by reducing the deck space, would you consider it desirable that that should be done? - No, I would not, because if you look at the record of the trade you will see that this trade has been carried on with absolute immunity from loss always, and it is not necessary. The Commissioner: This is not helping me a bit. 23062. (Mr. Harbinson.) You say where it is practicable it is desirable? - There is no doubt about it being practicable in the case of a small crew. 23063. Assuming that my Lord came to the conclusion that it was practicable that a large boat like the “Titanic,” by reducing her deck space and stowing boats on the poop and on the well deck, could carry sufficient boats to accommodate everybody on board her, would you say that that would be desirable? - I would not. What is his Lordship’s opinion I have nothing to do with. 23064. You say that in the case of small boats where it is practicable it is desirable? - The Rule says this. I was not one of the Committee that drew up the Rules. 23065. Do you agree with the Rules? - I agree with it because they are there. 23066. Merely because they are there? - Merely because they are there. I might be inclined to revise them. 23067. But you did not when you were advising the Board of Trade? - I did not. There was no necessity to. 23068. Was it while you were advising the Board of Trade that your attention was specifically directed to the cases of the boating of the “Titanic” and the “Olympic” while they were on the stocks at Belfast? - No, not the “Titanic.” 23069. The “Olympic”? - Yes, the “Olympic” was then projected. 23070. And when it was projected the question was mooted at the Board of Trade when you were in a responsible position? - The question originated with myself. 23071. And was it on your advice that the boating accommodation on the “Olympic” was not increased? - No, it was not. It was on my advice that the question was referred to the Advisory Committee. 23072. I see, you were responsible for referring it to the Committee, but you gave no direct advice to your Department? - None. 23073. Therefore, you were not responsible for the answer that was given at the time by the President of the Board of Trade? - Not at all.