Page 82 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 23 - 26

to the counter in getting them over. 23553. Assuming you did not consider it desirable to carry boats so far aft as the poop, would not you think it proper that ample arrangements should be made and adequate notices posted fore and aft of the ship to notify third class passengers in times of emergency and danger the readiest and quickest way to find their way to the boats? - That is a matter of detail. The Commissioner: That is an argument rather than a question. Mr. Harbinson: I put it in the form of a question. The Commissioner: Yes, but it is an argument, and you can argue it before me. 23554. (Mr. Harbinson.) I hope to have the opportunity of doing so. (To the Witness.) You do not consider it necessary to make any further provision or provide any further means of access for third class passengers to the places where the boats are located? - Not beyond what is the ordinary practice. There are certain directions in all these ships for the passengers to get on to the deck. At nighttime you have red lamps showing the passengers the ladders so that they have their means of escape, so I do not think there is any necessity for an amplification of those things. 23555. Do your official regulations prescribe, as a matter of fact, emergency doors and other exits and means of ingress and egress? - Yes. 23556. Is there any special instruction given to the Surveyors of the Board of Trade to see that these regulations are carried out in every detail? - No special instructions, because the instructions are laid down and the Surveyors have to carry them out. 23557. And you assume they are carried out? - I know it - I do not assume it at all. 23558. In your opinion, up to the present and in the light of the “Titanic” disaster, you do not think any further means of egress or communication from fore and aft of the ship to the boat deck should be provided? - No; from what I saw of the vessel’s plans I consider they were quite adequate for the purpose. 23559. The plans of the “Titanic” and the “Olympic”? - Yes. Mr. Holmes: I have no question to ask, my Lord. Examined by Mr. LAING. 23560. Yesterday you told us that you had considered this matter in 1911, and 26 boats, with 8,200 cubic feet capacity was the result? - Yes, I had not all my figures with me yesterday. I was led to expect that I should be called not yesterday afternoon but today, and consequently I had not all my papers with me, and was not au fait with my figures. 23561. I did not understand it, that is all. May we strike out the 8,200? - In that connection, yes. The table that I had in my mind at that time was in accordance with my recommendation from Liverpool. I mixed up my figures rather. The Commissioner: Do you want to ask any questions, Mr. Attorney-General? The Attorney-General: I only want to put one thing to prevent misconception. Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL. 23562. According to the Minute you, Captain Parke, and Mr. Harris were asked to report on this matter, but I find on looking through the Papers that Mr. Archer also made some suggestions? - That is right. 23563. (The Commissioner.) That makes a fourth? - Yes. 23564. (The Attorney-General.) If you want a figure with reference to the 45,000 or 50,000 tons so that you may have it altogether, I see he recommended the biggest number of boats? - Yes. The Attorney-General: Twenty-four was the number of boats he required - 14,250 cubic feet capacity under davits, 24,937 cubic capacity with the addition of the supplementary boats. I have all the documents here, which I think your Lordship ought to see in order that you should have