Page 84 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 23 - 26
P. 84
23574. Then you made a number of enquiries and went into the matter very fully as far as you could? - Yes. 23575. Then, as a consequence of that, did you modify the view which you had expressed in the report? - I modified my view in consequence of a visit which I paid to the shipyards on the Tees, the Tyne, and the Clyde, in January last, for the purpose of seeing whether my ideas as to the improvements in ship construction, the subdivision of the ships, the strength of the bulkheads and their disposition - were right or not. From what I saw I was quite confirmed in my original opinion, as expressed in my letter from Liverpool, to the effect that we should rely upon an efficient system of bulkhead subdivision of the ship rather than on any large increase in the number of boats. 23576. That is the substance of it? - That is the substance of it. 23577. That was right according to your view. Did you, in consequence of that, think that a less number of boats might be required and demanded by the Board of Trade than you had actually put into your table? - Precisely. That is exactly the course. The Commissioner: It does not say how many less. 23578. (The Attorney-General.) No, only that in principle he formed the opinion, being strengthened in that view about the necessity of paying greater attention to efficient bulkheads, that in his view it would not be necessary to make demands for so many boats or so much boat accommodation. That is the effect of it. The Witness: That is it precisely. (After a short adjournment.) The Commissioner: I understand it will not be convenient to sit tomorrow, and therefore we shall not come back till Monday morning. 23579. (The Attorney-General.) There is one question I want to put to Captain Young, because my reference to the minutes and documents is a matter which I think your Lordship ought to know. (To the Witness.) You said just now, before the adjournment, that you had not actually formulated your views as to the number of boats or the cubic capacity which would have to be provided, but you had modified the opinion which you had formed originally, when the table we have had before us, or to which I have referred, was made by you? - Yes. 23580. You will remember that? - Yes, that was an error. 23581. I find by reference to it that there was a scale which you, Captain Young, had formulated, and that scale, I understand, did go before the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee? - Quite correct. The Attorney-General: So that your Lordship will see it is quite right, as we said before, that on the report made by the three gentlemen whose names I gave you, and Mr. Archer, those tables did not go before the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee, but a table did, and that was the modified table which Captain Young had made in consequence of the opinion he had formed after visiting these various places. The Commissioner: Very well. 23582. (The Attorney-General.) To make it quite clear, that was after the report had been made by the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee. Your Lordship will remember they made their report in July of 1911. (To the Witness.) Just follow this, please, Captain Young, I have only just got it. At the time that the Committee made its report in July, 1911, no scale had been placed before them? - That is perfectly correct. 23583. But subsequently, I see, on the 28th March,1912, and on the 30th March, 1912, a scale was put before them? - That is so. 23584. Your Lordship will remember we had the reference to these dates in the evidence of Sir
   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89