* * * * *
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.