Page 44 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 23 - 26
P. 44
consider that the Board of Trade should insist upon the three-fourths?- Yes, the continuation of the old Rule. 23169. When you speak of 26 boats, do you mean each of the size that were placed upon the “Titanic”? - Boats of 600 cubic feet, yes. That is what I had in my mind. 23170. Were the boats 600 cubic feet that were placed in the “Titanic”? - A trifle over, I think. 23171. (The Solicitor-General.) They were 650? - Yes, to hold 64 or 65 people. The Commissioner: They were smaller. The Solicitor-General: Inasmuch as one allows 10 cubic feet for each passenger in a lifeboat, it follows that a boat that will take 65 people is a boat with 650 cubic feet. This Witness suggests 600 cubic feet. 23172. (Mr. Butler Aspinall - To the Witness.) In view of the fact that Sir Walter Howell told us that this letter was the outcome of material supplied to you before the disaster, it follows that this opinion that you have been giving us was not an opinion arrived at in consequence of the “Titanic” disaster? - I cannot make it too clear that the opinions that I formed and the advice that I offered to the Marine Department of the Board of Trade was thought out many months before the disaster occurred. 23173. In view of the disaster, do you think that the scale suggested to us now should be increased? - What scale is suggested now? 23174. Well, your suggestion? - I do not think that there is any necessity to increase that scale beyond what I have already laid down. 23175. Do you think it would be practicable to increase it? - In many cases it would be practicable, certainly; in some cases, I think, it would not. It depends a good deal upon the construction of the existing type of vessel. 23176. (The Commissioner.) I gather that you do not think it is desirable in all cases of emigrant and passenger ships that sufficient boat accommodation should be carried to accommodate all the people that under the certificate that vessel is authorised to carry? - What I mean, my Lord, is this, that where it is practicable for a passenger ship to carry boats - I say practicable - for all persons on board, this is passengers and crew, I see no reason why the ship owner should not provide them. But there are certain cases in my mind of certain ships of a structure where it might not be practicable, and I do not think it is practicable in the ships I have in my mind to carry boats sufficient for all on board. 23177. Do you think the “Titanic” was one of them? - No, I think not. I think the “Titanic” could have carried boats sufficient for all on board; but it would have necessitated the piling up of one boat on top of another. 23178. And when you talk about all on board, are you speaking with reference to the number that she actually carried, or are you speaking with reference to the number she was authorised to carry? - I do not quite appreciate your question. 23179. Well, she did not carry nearly so many passengers as she might have carried? - No. 23180. And I want to know whether, when you are talking about boats that you think she could have carried, are you speaking with reference to the number of passengers and crew actually on board, or the number of passengers and crew that might conceivably be on board? - The latter, my Lord. 23181. She was certified for 3,547 passengers and crew? - Yes. 23182. She only carried 2,000 odd? - Yes. 23183. (Mr. Butler Aspinall.) Have you calculated how many boats would be necessary to carry her full complement? - About 63. 23184. In your view would it have been practicable for the “Titanic” to have had placed upon her 63 such boats? - Well, certainly, yes, it would have been practicable. 23185. You put emphasis on the word “practicable”? - Yes.
   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49