Page 164 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 19 - 22
P. 164
The Attorney-General: Quite; and that is the position as the result of the Committee appointed in 1890. From that time no other Committee has sat with regard to this matter until one was appointed, I think, in April, 1911. The Commissioner: And that Committee’s Report was not acted on? The Attorney-General: It has not been acted upon. The Commissioner: It has not been acted upon? The Attorney-General: That is so up to now. The Commissioner: It was made in 1901, was it not? The Attorney-General: No, 1911. The Commissioner: I beg your pardon. The Attorney-General: Is your Lordship speaking of the last Committee, or of this one of 1890? The Commissioner: I really do not know, but I am speaking of the recommendations which you have just read to me. The Attorney-General: Those are the recommendations of the Committee appointed in 1890. The Commissioner: Have they ever been acted upon? The Attorney-General: No, there has been no further exemption granted. The Commissioner: They advised a further exemption which would have necessitated an alteration of Rule 12. The Attorney-General: Yes. The Commissioner: But although they made these recommendations nothing has been done. The Attorney-General: I think that is right. 22262. (The Commissioner.) Is that right, Sir Walter? The Witness: That is quite right; you have put it exactly, my Lord. The Board of Trade did not adopt the recommendation. The Attorney-General: What it amounts to is this, that although they recommended that the additional lifeboats required should be dispensed with if you had efficient watertight compartments the rule as it stands continued, and as it then existed, that is to say that no alteration was made in it. The Commissioner: Then so far as the recommendation of the Committee is concerned it need never have been made. It had no effect. The Attorney-General: I think it had. 22263. (The Commissioner.) What effect had it? The Witness: The Board of Trade were not satisfied as to what constituted a watertight compartment or bulkheaded ship, efficiently bulkheaded, and so they referred to this Committee to say what was an efficiently bulkheaded ship, so that they might be exempted from the additional life-saving appliances referred to in Rule 12; and this Committee gave them the advice and they adopted it. But it went further. These recommendations went beyond it. They said, “You shall do away with the whole of the deduction allowed for life-saving appliances instead of one-half.” The Commissioner: I did not understand that. 22264. (The Attorney-General.) No, not quite; the whole of the additional ones. The Witness: Yes, you are right, “More liberal deduction.” I think the expression in that report was - 22265. They dealt with a number of other matters? - Yes. 22266. In connection with bulkheads? - Quite. 22267. But as to this particular recommendation at paragraph 8, my Lord, is right in saying that that was not followed? - That is quite right. The Attorney-General: That is what my Lord asked you.
   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169