Page 43 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 23 - 26
P. 43
seen papers in connection with it which I desired to see. That is all. 23150. You cannot assist us in any way with regard to the construction of the “Titanic”? - No, not so far as that survey is concerned. 23151. Do you remember having brought to your notice the Report of the Advisory Committee of 1911? - Yes. 23152. That Report has been read. In consequence of that Report did you yourself take any action to enable you to advise the Board of Trade as to the requirements of that Report? - Yes. 23153. What did you do? - First of all, I naturally looked through to see what it consisted of, and I realised that it was not quite in accordance with our ideas, and that there were certain points in relation to the Report of the Advisory Committee which would have to be referred back to them, because they did not quite fit in with our ideas, mainly with regard to the depth of lifeboats. 23154. Sir Walter Howell told us yesterday with regard to this, and I think his evidence came to this, that you, the nautical adviser, in conjunction with other members of your staff, went into this question with a great deal of care? - We did. 23155. And did it require some little time? - It required considerable time. 23156. On the 16th of April of the present year a letter was written from Sir Walter Howell to the Advisory Committee, and he told us yesterday that you were the person who gave him the information which is contained in that letter. Is that right? - Quite. 23157. And I find in that letter this statement: “The Board are of opinion that a very careful and thorough revision of the Table should now be made.” That is the Table dealing with - ?- The extension of the boat scale. 23158. Was that your opinion? - Undoubtedly. It is a matter which should be carefully looked into. 23159. (The Commissioner.) Did you hear Sir Alfred Chalmers’ evidence? - I did. 23160. Do you agree with it on this point? - Not absolutely, with regard to the degree of extension. 23161. (Mr. Butler Aspinall.) You think there should be an extension? - I do. 23162. To what extent? - To a reasonable extent. 23163. What does that mean? - Well, it should be a reasonable extent in view of the object that we seek. In other words, what I had in my mind when I advised the Board as to the action they should take in the matter was not that we should have an increase of boats for all persons on board, but that we should have a reasonable extension of the scale in order to provide for a proper and safe transfer of the passengers from one vessel to another in case of adversity. That was the primary idea in my mind in regard to the extension of the scale, and I indicated that to the Board many months before that. 23164. Apply your opinion to the concrete case of the “Titanic.” To what extent do you think the Board of Trade Rule should be extended to fit the case of the “Titanic”? - Well, what I advocated myself and what I should prefer to give this afternoon is this: I laid it down that we should require at least 26 boats under davits. 23165. And what would be the cubic contents of those 26 boats? According to the present requirements the cubic contents of the boats required to be placed under davits on the “Titanic” is 9,625 feet. That is right, is it not? - Yes. 23166. For 16 boats? - That is, of course, altogether, with the three-fourths additional. That is not entirely under davits. 23167. No, not entirely under davits. You are quite right, I am wrong in saying under davits? - What I had advocated as being required under davits was 26 boats having a capacity of 8,200 cubic feet. 23168. And if those boats were not sufficient to carry all on board, then I suppose you would
   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48