Page 184 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 19 - 22
P. 184
Officers. Mr. Spencer was nominated by the Marine Engineers’ Association, and he also represented Engineer Officers. Then Mr. Henson and Mr. Cathery and Mr. Havelock Wilson were nominated by the National Sailors’ and Firemen’s Union, and represented seamen. Mr. Barrie was a shipowner and Mr. Joyce was a pilot; Mr. Henry Radcliffe, shipowner, and Sir Walter Runciman, shipowner, were additional members, the last four being appointed by the Board of Trade. That made the Committee. That was the Committee which had been in existence for a number of years. I do not know whether you can tell me how long? - It is reappointed at intervals. 22427. I am not sure what you mean. The Committee was appointed originally under the Act of 1888? - Quite. 22428. And its constitution is provided by the Statute, and again under the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, under that 17th schedule to which I referred? - Yes. 22429. Then there is the appointment of the Committee. It must have been under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894? - Quite. 22430. Does that Committee continue in existence up to the present moment? - No, it was appointed for two years. 22431. And then? - And then can be re-appointed with or without alteration. 22432. When was this Committee appointed consisting of the gentlemen whose names I have read? - In 1909. There has been very slight alteration in the Committee’s constitution from the beginning. There are one or two things to which I will call attention. If your Lordship has the document before you, the three or four paragraphs that follow I think should be read: “When matters concerning the revision of the Rules for Life-Saving Appliances are to be considered by the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee the Board of Trade appoint representatives of the Committee of Lloyd’s Register and the Committee of the Institute of London Underwriters to assist the Advisory Committee. On this occasion” - that is referring to the 1911 Committee and Enquiry - “Messrs. T. Rome and R. A. Ogilvie represented Lloyd’s Register and the Institute of London Underwriters respectively. The following two gentlemen were also co-opted for this occasion - Rt. Hon. A. M. Carlisle, representing shipbuilders, and Mr. T. Royden, representing shipowners.” The Commissioner: Is this sheet which you have given me torn out of the historical document that you intend to furnish me with? The Attorney-General: Yes, but I wanted it a little re-arranged, and I also thought it would be better to have it printed a little larger. This was part of the Appendix, but I do not want to hand it in as it is now, because it really includes a little too much and wants a little alteration. I had given directions before we came in this morning that it should be done. It is only because I have some Departmental papers, which my friends could not have, which made me think I had some material which could not be included in Mr. Laing’s document. But we will make a comparison, and I have no doubt anything Mr. Laing has done will be most useful so far as it goes, and we will incorporate in it also our own papers. It is this Committee which reports in July of 1911. If your Lordship looks at the names you will see - The Commissioner: They are substantially the same. 22433. (The Attorney-General - To the Witness.) It was a Sub-Committee, I think, was it not? - Yes. 22434. It does not include all members? - No. The Commissioner: I thought it was a Sub-Committee. The Attorney-General: It really must have been because of the names. The Witness: On page 17 it is so headed. The Commissioner: Mr. Norman Hill in his letter of the 4th July refers to the Report of a Sub- Committee.
   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189