Page 69 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 32 - 36

Mr. Laing: It is on page 518, Question 20372: “(The Commissioner.) If it had been carried up to C deck the ship would have been saved, or might have been saved? - (The Attorney-General.) Yes, I think it would.” The Attorney-General: It must be wrong. Mr. Laing: I hope I have now justified the charge which I brought against the Attorney- General. The Attorney-General: I think the last thing on which I would venture to give an opinion is as to flotability. That is wrong. Mr. Laing: Mr. Wilding has put in, as your Lordship knows, what has been called the flooding plan, which is a very elaborate and most ingenious plan, showing the flooding of the various compartments; and as the Attorney-General disowns this answer, which he has given, I took the opportunity of getting Mr. Wilding to answer it. It is not in the evidence, but it is on the plan, and Mr. Wilding’s answer is that had the bulkhead in question been carried up to C, as your Lordship’s question suggests, the ship might have floated six to twelve hours longer. That is the answer. But I should like to point out in that connection that there is no reason I can see, nor has any reason been suggested during the course of this case, why that particular bulkhead should have been carried up to deck C, because it is in violation of the whole scheme of the design of the ship. And if you carry up the watertight bulkheads to deck C, as Mr. Wilding has pointed out, the ship as a commercial object becomes of very little use, because they want to have deck C free. Your Lordship will remember - I need not trouble you with the reference - that Mr. Wilding said that they would not be able to supply the exits which were required by the Board of Trade for emigrant vessels and so forth if these bulkheads were carried up to deck C. I have answered that question so far as I can; it is one of the questions upon which there is no evidence, but a plan and the answer which I have read, and that is the only answer I can give, namely, what Mr. Wilding has told me. I do not want to go into the matter because it has been gone into more than once. The evidence shows that No. 4 boiler section was holed, and that water was rising into it from the skin of the ship. That is the result, I submit, of the evidence which I read to your Lordship of Dillon and Cavell, who both were in that particular compartment and who spoke to the water rising. My Lord, I do not think there is anything further I have to say. The Commissioner: The Witness said nothing about the locality from which the water came. Mr. Laing: I think that all came out. I did not say anything about it because Mr. Wilding went into it fully when he was in the box. There was no cross-examination in my remembrance of anything he said about it. I can give your Lordship the reference to the passage. The Commissioner: Do so, please. The Attorney-General: Is your Lordship’s question directed to No. 4 or generally? The Commissioner: No. 4, I think. Mr. Laing: I thought your Lordship meant generally. The Commissioner: No. 4. Mr. Laing: I will give your Lordship the passage about that. You will find it on page 517, and from Questions 20346 to 20350 you will find Mr. Wilding’s view as to whether this compartment was holed or not from his knowledge of the evidence as it had been delivered. The Commissioner: Just read it, Mr. Laing. “20346: Have you got any theory as to the extent to which the outside of the ship was damaged in No. 4? - (A.) There is a space between the stokehold plate on which the men stand and the tank top, and the inference that I drew from the evidence that was given by Dillon was that an attempt was being made to pump out this water which the engineers found coming in, and that that was the reason why they sent aft. They had only one pump in No. 4 boiler room, and the reason they sent aft for those additional pumps was to get additional pumping power on to No. 4 boiler room, with a view to keeping it down. That