Page 164 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 23 - 26
P. 164
bring the whole thing up again that had been worked at for I do not know how long - weeks or months. (Q.) Do you want to go back on what you signed? - (A.) I certainly do not think it is enough, but I was not going to be a dog in the manger” - I do not know what that means, quite - “when a lot of gentlemen had come to the conclusion that this was satisfactory for the mercantile shipping.” Now, I understand you to say, Sir Norman, that the scale adopted was suggested by Mr. Carlisle himself? - Produced at the first meeting, my Lord, in writing by Mr. Carlisle himself. And, my Lord, may I say, for the honour of my Committee, I believe we have done useful work. These kind of reflections are very difficult to sit down under. We have no opportunity of answering them; it is a condition of our service that our communications between the Committee and the Board are confidential. Might I ask if you can spare the time to read through those Shorthand Notes? Well, my Lord, may I ask some counsel who has read through them - 24630. (The Commissioner.) I am personally quite satisfied with your statement as to their effect? - The account that Mr. Carlisle gave you of what happened on that Committee is pure invention. May I just refer you to one other question? You did not touch on it yourself. It is on the same page, 526. There is a question put to Mr. Carlisle: “21488. Are you aware that if the conditions required by the Board of Trade had been carried out your recommendations would involve the carrying of fewer boats than was in fact carried.” Now, my Lord, at the Committee we intended and we did increase by 50 percent the boats that would have had to be carried on a vessel such as the “Titanic,” and we increased their cubic capacity by almost 50 percent. And we all knew it, and we all intended to do it, Mr. Carlisle and all the rest of us. 24631. Then why did not you do it? - My Lord, we recommended it, and our recommendation was sent to the Board of Trade on the 4th July, 1911. 24632. You say it is included in that recommendation? - Yes. 24633. (Mr. Butler Aspinall.) Since the disaster to the “Titanic,” have your Committee been further asked to advise the Board generally upon the existing life-saving appliances? - We have, and following our practice we have added other advisers who, we think, could help us. 24634. I think you have co-opted to assist you the following gentlemen, Dr. S. J. P. Theirle, of Lloyd’s Register? - Yes. 24635. Mr. J. Foster King, of the British Corporation? - Yes. The Commissioner: What is the British Corporation? 24636. (Mr. Butler Aspinall.) I do not know. The Witness: That is in Glasgow, it is similar to Lloyd’s Register, in Glasgow. The Commissioner: Very well. 24637. (Mr. Butler Aspinall.) Mr. W. J. Luke, of John Brown and Company, who are they? - They are big shipbuilders, the builders of the “Lusitania.” 24638. And Mr. Trevisa Clarke, of Swan Hunter and Wigham Richardson? - They are the builders of the “Mauritania”; John Brown and Company are the builders of the “Lusitania.” 24639. Mr. Royden - is he the same? - Yes. The Deputy Chairman of the Cunard Company. 24640. And Captain J. B. Watt, the late Commodore of the Cunard Line? - Yes. 24641. I think you have, since the “Titanic” disaster, given the boat scale very careful consideration, and have you, notwithstanding this disaster, resolved to adhere to the recommendations which are contained in the report of July 4th, 1911? - We have. I want to make that perfectly clear. 24642. Certainly? - It is with regard to the boats to be carried under the davits. With regard to the additional boats to be carried, we have not yet made our report. 24643. You are still considering that? - Yes, but with regard to the boats under the davits on the advice of these gentlemen we have asked to assist us, and it is a very representative Committee, we have adhered to the evidence we gave on the 4th July, 1911.
   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169