The SECRETARY,
Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee,
7, Whitehall Gardens, S. W.
This finishes the history of the action of the board of trade in relation to the provision of boat accommodation on emigrant ships. The outstanding circumstance in it is the omission, during so many years, to revise the rules of 1894 and this, I think, was blameable, notwithstanding the excuse or explanation put forward by Sir Alfred Chalmers. I am, however, doubtful whether even if the rules had been revised the change would have been such as to have required boat accommodation which would have increased the number of lives saved. Having regard to the recommendations of the advisory committee, the board of trade would probably not have felt justified in making rules which would have required more boat accommodation than that with which the Titanic was actually provided; and it is not to be forgotten that the Titanic boat accommodation was utilized to less than two-thirds of its capacity. These considerations, however, afford no excuse for the delay of the board of trade.
The gross tonnage of a vessel is not, in my opinion, a satisfactory basis on which to calculate the provision of boat accommodation. Hitherto, I believe, it has been accepted as the best basis by all nations. But there seems much more to be said in favor of making the number of lives carried the basis and for providing boat or raft accommodation for all on board. Rule 12 of the life-saving appliances rules of 1902, which deals with water-tight compartments and boat accommodation, ought to be abolished. The provision of such compartments is of supreme importance, but it is clear that it should not be sought at the expense of a decrease in boat accommodation. When naval architects have devised practical means for rendering ships unsinkable, the question of boat accommodation may have to be reconsidered, but until that time arrives boat accommodation should, where practicable, be carried for all on board. This suggestion may be thought by some to be extravagant. It has never been enforced in the mercantile marine of Great Britain, nor as far as I know in that of any foreign nation. But it appears, nevertheless, to be admitted by all that it is possible without undue inconvenience or undue interference with commerce to increase considerably in many cases the accommodation hitherto carried, and it seems, therefore, reasonable that the law should require an increase to be made. As far as foreign-going passenger and emigrant steamships are concerned, I am of opinion that, unless justification be shown for deviating from this course, such ships should carry boats or rafts for all on board.
With reference to the second branch of the complaint against the board of trade, namely that their officials had failed to exercise due care in the supervision of the vessel's plans and in the inspection of the work done upon her, the charges broke down. Suggestions were made that the board's requirements fell short of those of Lloyd's Registry; but no evidence was forthcoming to support the suggestions. The investigation of the charges took much time, but it only served to show that the officials had discharged their duties carefully and well.
POWERS OF THE BOARD OF TRADE AS REGARDS THE SUPERVISION OF DESIGNS OF VESSELS.
The Titanic was efficiently designed and constructed to meet the contingencies which she was intended to meet.
The bulkheads were of ample strength. They were sufficiently closely spaced and were carried up in the vessel to a height greater than sufficient to meet the requirements of the 1891 bulkheads committee.
But I am advised that the ship could have been further subdivided so that she would probably have remained afloat longer than she did. The board of trade have, however, apparently no power to exercise any real supervision in the matter of subdivision. All they have express power to insist upon in this connection with respect to any steam vessel is that there shall be four water-tight bulkheads—a provision quite inadequate for safety in a collision damaging the vessel abaft the collision bulkhead. They can also, if invited by the shipowner (but not otherwise), exercise supervision under rule 12. This supervision, I am told, they have been invited to exercise in only 103 cases over a period of 18 years. In 69 of these cases the board have expressed their satisfaction with the subdivision provided. It seems to me that the board should be empowered to require the production of the designs of all passenger steamers at an early period of their construction and to direct such alterations as may appear to them to be necessary and practicable for the purpose of securing proper water-tight subdivision.
VII. Finding of the Court.
It is now convenient to answer the 26 questions submitted by the board of trade.