Page 311

Wreck Commissioners' Court.

SCOTTISH HALL,

BUCKINGHAM GATE,

Tuesday, 21st May, 1912.

PROCEEDINGS

WIITH

THE RIGHT HON. LORD MERSEY,

Wreck Commissioner of the United Kingdom,

WITH

REAR ADMIRAL THE HON. S. A. GOUGH-CALTHORPE, C.V.O., R.N.,

CAPTAIN A. W. CLARKE,

COMMANDER F. C. A. LYON, R.N.R.,

PROFESSOR J. H. BILES, LL.D., D.Sc.,

MR. E. C. CHASTON, R.N.R.

Acting as Assessors.

ON A FORMAL INVESTIGATION

ORDERED BY THE BOARD OF TRADE INTO THE

LOSS OF THE S. S. "TITANIC."

TWELTH DAY.

THE RIGHT HON. SIR RUFUS ISAACS, K.C., M.P. (Attorney-General), SIR JOHN SIMON, K.C., M.P. (Solicitor-General), MR. BUTLER ASPINAL, K.C., MR. S. A. T. ROWLATT and MR. RAYMOND ASQUITH (instructed by SIR R. ELLIS CUNLIFFE, Solicitor to the Board of Trade) appeared as Counsel on behalf of the Board of Trade.

THE RIGHT HON. SIR ROBERT FINLAY, K.C., M.P., MR. P. LAING, K.C., MR. MAURICE HILL., K.C., and MR. NORMAN RAEBURN (instructed by Messrs. Hill, Dickinson and Co.), appeared as counsel on behalf of the White Star line.

MR. THOMAS SCANLAN, M.P. (instructed by Mr. Smith, Solicitor), appeared as Counsel on behalf of the National Sailors’ and Firemen’s Union of Great Britain and Ireland and of the personal representatives of several deceased members of the crew and of survivors who were members of the Union. (Admitted On application.)

MR. B0TTERELL (instructed by Messrs. Botterell and Roche) appeared on behalf of the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom. (Admitted on application.)

MR. THOMAS LEWIS appeared on behalf of the British Seafarers’ Union. (Admitted on application.)

MR. L. S. HOLMES (of Messrs. Miller, Taylor and Holmes, of Liverpool) appeared on behalf of the Imperial Merchant Service Guild. (Admitted on application.)

MR. COTTER appeared on behalf of the National Union of Stewards. (Admitted on application.)

MR. HAMAR GREENWOOD, M.P. (instructed by Messrs. Pritchard and Sons), watched proceedings on behalf of the Allan Line Steamship Company.

MR. HAMAR GREENWOOD, M.P. (instructed by Messrs. William A. Crump and Son), watched proceedings for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.

MR. ROCHE (instructed by Messrs. Charles G. Bradshaw and Waterson) appeared on behalf of the Marine Engineers’ Association. (Admitted on application.)

MR. A. CLEMENT EDWARDS. M.P., (instructed by Messrs. Helder, Roberts and Co.), appeared as Counsel on behalf of the Dock, Wharf, Riverside, and General Workers Union of Great Britain and Ireland. (Admitted on application.)

MR. W. D. HARBINSON (instructed by Mr. Farrell) appeared on behalf of the third-class passengers. (Admitted on application.)

MR. ROBERTSON DUNLOP watched the proceedings on behalf of the owners and officers of the s.s. “Californian.” (Leyland Line). (Admitted on Application.)

MR. H. E. DUKE, K. C., M. P., and MR. VAUGHAN WILIAMS (instructed by Messrs. A. F. and R. W. Tweedie) appeared as Counsel on behalf of Sir Cosmo and Lady Duff-Gordon. (Admitted on Application.)

Page 312

CHARLES HERBERT LIGHTOLLER - Recalled.

Further examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL.

13797. You were just telling us what you found when you came up on deck after you had heard of what had happened, and I think you just told us that the steam was roaring off - blowing out of the boilers, I suppose? - Yes.
13798. Was it making a great noise? - Yes.
13799. So great as to be difficult to hear what was said? - Very difficult.
13800. Did you ascertain whether all hands had been called on deck? - Yes; I met the Chief Officer almost immediately after, coming out of the door of the quarters. First of all the Chief Officer told me to commence to get the covers off the boats. I asked him then if all hands had been called, and he said, “Yes.”
13801. I should like to understand whether there was a division of duties here. In an emergency of this sort, have you a special responsibility for one side of the ship as against the other? - No.
13802. Then there is an order from the Chief Officer that you should see to the stripping of the covers off the boats? - Yes.
13803. Did you do that? - Yes.
13804. At that time had any of the boats had their covers stripped, or had you to begin it? - None, with the exception of the emergency boats.
13805. Those were the two which we have heard of which were kept swung out? - Yes.
13806. And did you get hands to help you in that work? - Yes, I commenced myself, and then as the hands turned up, I told them off to the boats.
13807. Which side did you begin, and what was the order? - I began on the port side with the port forward boat. That would be No. 4.
13808. That would be the one immediately abaft of the emergency boat? - Yes.
13809. Just tell us the order of things, will you? - I commenced stripping off No. 4; then two or three turned up; I told them off to No. 4 boat and stood off then myself and directed the men as they came up on deck, passing around the boat deck, round the various boats, and seeing that the men were evenly distributed around both the port and starboard.
13810. Do you mean evenly distributed as between the different boats? - Exactly.
13811. Had you any means of knowing what boat a particular seaman would be attached to if he did not know; have you any means of telling him? - Well, I did not think it advisable, taking into consideration the row going on with the steam to make any inquiries. I could only direct them by motions of the hand. They could not hear what I said.
13812. So that you parcelled them out as best you could? - Exactly.
13813. Did you go to boats in the afterend as well? - Yes.
13814. On the port side? - Both sides.
13815. Then you went the whole circuit of the boat deck? - Yes.
13816. Carrying out this order? - Yes.
13817. And was each of the boat covers stripped in order all the way round? - All the boats, as far as I can remember, were under way. I remember directing one of the junior officers to look after the after section of boats.
13818. What length of time would this operation of uncovering all these boats take? - You mean, given the crew?
13819. You were engaged on this work. I want to realise how long you were engaged on it? - Well, I really could not say what time the after boats were finished uncovering. Knowing that the Third Officer was there in charge I did not bother so much about that as the forward ones, and about the time I had finished seeing the men distributed round the deck, and the boat covers well under way and everything going smoothly, I then enquired of the Chief Officer whether we should carry on and swing out.
13820. And what did Mr. Wilde say about that - what were the orders? - I am under the impression that Mr. Wilde said “No,” or “Wait,” something to that effect, and meeting the Commander, I asked him, and he said, “Yes, swing out.”
13821. And did you get that done? - Yes, on the port side. I did not go to the starboard side again.
13822. Up to the time of swinging out the boats which had been stripped, at any rate, on the port side, what about the passengers? - I had met a few passengers on deck, not many.
13823. Had you heard any general orders given about getting them? - No, I could not hear any.
13824. Was the steam still blowing off all this time? - Still blowing off, yes.
13825. Up to this time had you noticed whether the ship had got any list? - Not to my knowledge; no list whatever so far as I know.
13826. Up to this time had you noticed whether she showed a tendency to drop by the head? - No.
13827. She was on an even keel so far as you know? - Yes.
       The Commissioner: Now, you say “at this time.” I do not quite know what time.
       The Solicitor-General: I was stopping; I had meant to stop at the time he ceased to swing out boats on the port side, which is, as I understand, after stripping all the boat covers.
       The Commissioner: I understand about the course of events at this time; I want to know by the clock.
13828. (The Solicitor-General.) I did, too, my Lord. (To the Witness.) Could you help us and give us some estimate as to how long this would have taken from the time that you came out. You see, you have said you think half an hour elapsed after the collision before you came out and realised the seriousness of it, and then, of course, you undertook those duties, and you have described them. Could you give us an estimate how long would have elapsed from the time you came out on deck and started this work to the time the boats were swung out on the port side? - I should like you to understand quite clearly about the boat covers. I had not seen all the boat covers actually off. We were taking the boats in rotation, but from the time we commenced to strip No. 4 boat cover until the time when we swung them out I should judge would be probably at most 15 or 20 minutes.
13829. So far you are confining yourself to No. 4? - Exactly.
13830. And during that time had the stripping of the covers of the other boats been going on? - That was being continued at the same time. Of course, there were the falls to coil down.
13831. You took No. 4. Was the swinging out of No. 4 earlier than the swinging out of the other boats on the port side? - Yes, as it happened. You see the men coming up the staircase on the forepart would naturally come to No. 4, and No. 4 was got under way first and would be completed first.
13832. Did you go on your way down the port side getting it done? - Yes.
13833. Taking the swinging out of the last boat that you saw to on the port side, how much later would that be? - That was very late on.
13834. (The Commissioner.) That is what I want to know? - Well, you see, if I may give it to you in the order that I was working, I swung out No. 4 with the intention of loading all the boats from A deck, the next deck below the boat deck. I lowered No. 4 down to A deck, and gave orders for the women and children to go down to A deck to be loaded through the windows. My reason for loading the boats through the windows from A deck was that there was a coaling wire, a very strong wire running along A deck, and I thought it would be very useful to trice the boat to in case the ship got a slight list or anything; but as I was going down the ladder after giving the order, someone sung out and said the windows were up. I countermanded the order and told the people to come back on the boat deck and instructed two or three, I think they were stewards, to find the handles and lower the windows. That left No. 4 boat hanging at A deck, so then I went on to No. 6.

Page 313

13835. And was No. 6 still on the boat deck? - Yes. Then I proceeded to put out No. 6 and lower away. Previous to this, I may say I had had orders from the Commander to fill the boats with women and children, put women and children into the boats and lower away.
13836. Of course, the model we have there shows the starboard side, but the arrangement is the same for this purpose, I think, and one sees that if one took the boat immediately abaft the emergency boat, and lowered it to A deck, it would in that model come against the closed-in side? - Yes.
13837. With the windows in it? - Yes.
13838. And your idea was that those windows should be opened and the people should get from the windows into the boat from A deck? - Exactly.
13839. Then that plan was not, in fact, carried out? - No, not on the port side.
13840. For the reason you have explained? - Yes.
       The Commissioner: I am still without the information I want.
13841. (The Solicitor-General.) I realise that, and I will come back to it. (To the Witness.) No. 4 would take some time. Then what was the next boat, so far as you are concerned, which was filled with women and children? - No. 6.
13842. And the next one? - As far as I remember, No. 8.
13843. That exhausts the boats, which are forward, on the port side? - Yes.
13844. Then did you see to the loading of any others on the port side? - I went forward - the last lifeboat for me to load on the port side was No. 4 from A deck.
13845. It got as far as that? - Yes, and it remained there.
13846. Now what I want to know is this - making the best estimate you can, can you give us some help as regards the time - either the time which had elapsed, or the time by the clock when the lowering away of No. 4 actually took place, putting it into the water? - Would it be of any assistance, if I gave you the time that the collapsible boat, the actual last boat, got away on the port side?
       The Commissioner: Well, it might.
       (A.) I can remember that distinctly - lowering it only about 10 feet.
13847. I will tell you what I want, and then perhaps you will be able to answer. You said that after the boats on the port side had been lowered the ship had no list, either to port or starboard, and that she was not down by the head. Now, I want to know at what time you observed that?
       The Solicitor-General: What I understand him to say was that the boats were swung out before he had noticed it. I did not understand him to say that they were lowered.
       The Commissioner: I understand him to say that it was quite a long time.
       The Solicitor-General: Quite.
       The Commissioner: I do not care whether they were lowered. At what time was it you noticed this ship had no list, and that it was not down by the head? - When I came on deck and commenced uncovering the boats.
       The Commissioner: I understood you were speaking of a much later period.
13848. (The Solicitor-General - To the Witness.) I was asking about a later period? - I am sorry.
13849. When you came out on deck, having been aroused, the ship was on an even keel? - Yes.
13850. You had heard that the water was out up to F deck? - Yes.
13851. But you did not notice any list? - No.
13852. How long did that state of things continue? When was it you did first notice either a list or that she was down by the head? - Very shortly, afterwards I noticed she was down by the head, when I was by No. 6 boat. When I left No. 4 and went to No. 6 she was distinctly down by the head, and I think it was while working at that boat it was noticed that she had a pretty heavy list to port.
13853. (The Commissioner.) This must have been within a quarter of an hour from your coming on the boat deck? - No, my Lord, it would take us a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes to get No. 4 uncovered and the falls out.
13854. But when you did get No. 4 out you noticed this list, I understand? - No, my Lord, I think I said at No. 6.
13855. Then how long would it take you to get No. 4 and No. 6 uncovered? - Well, it would take us from 15 minutes to 20 minutes to uncover No. 4; then to coil the falls down, then to swing out and lower it down to A deck would take another six or seven minutes at least. Then I gave an order to go down to the lower deck which I countermanded; perhaps two or three minutes might have elapsed there. Then I went to No. 6 about that time.
13856. How long were you working at No. 6? - I really could not say, my Lord. I went to No. 6 then, as far as I remember.
13857. At what point of these events did you notice that the ship had begun to be down by the head or to have a list? - It was when I was at No. 6 boat, my Lord.
13858. As I understand, that would be about half an hour after you had come on deck? - I think it is longer than that.
13859. Well, let us say three quarters of an hour? - Yes, perhaps three quarters of an hour.
13860. You had been half an hour in your bunk before you came on deck at all? - I said approximately half an hour.
13861. So this would be an hour or an hour and a quarter after the collision. And was it then for the first time you noticed the vessel had a list? - At whatever time that was, my Lord. However, it works out it was about when I was at boat No. 6.
13862. (The Solicitor-General.) What you had been doing in the interval was, you had been getting No. 4 unstripped; you had been getting her swung out, her falls cleared and let down as far as the A deck, and there you had ascertained that it was not possible to open the windows and get the people through? - Not immediately, and therefore rather than delay I did not go on with it.
13863. That is what happened? - Yes.
13864. Then turning your attention to No. 6 you then noticed the ship had got a list? - Yes, I think it was No. 6.
13865. (The Commissioner.) And it was a list to port? - Yes.
13866. Did you ever notice a list to starboard? - No.
13867. Was there a list to starboard? - Not that I am aware of, and I think I should have noticed it in lowering the boat. I may say that my notice was called to this list - I perhaps might not have noticed it; it was not very great - by Mr. Wilde calling out “All passengers over to the starboard side.” That was an endeavour to give her a righting movement, and it was then I noticed that the ship had a list. It would have been far more noticeable on the starboard side than on the port.
13868. (The Solicitor-General.) Did you hear that order given when you were dealing with boat No. 6? - Yes.
13869. Now by that time you were dealing with boat No. 6, were there a number of passengers, men, women and children, on the boat deck? - Yes.
13870. And at that time when you were dealing with No. 6 had any order been given about their getting into the boats? - Yes.
13871. Who gave it, and when was it given? - The Captain gave it to me.
13872. What was the order? - After I had swung out No. 4 boat I asked the Chief Officer should we put the women and children in, and he said “No.” I left the men to go ahead with their work and found the Commander, or I met him and I asked him should we put the women and children in, and the Commander said “Yes, put the women and children in and lower away.” That was the last order I received on the ship.

Page 314

13873. Was that, as you understood it, a general order for the boats? - Yes, a general order.
13874. Again, I should like to have the time fixed. Is that after these events you have described about boat No. 4? - No; previous to any swinging out, when No. 4 was almost uncovered; in fact, the canvas cover was off. They were taking the falls out and I think they were in the act of taking the strong back out, and the next movement to be executed would be swinging the boat out. So before any delay had occurred I asked the Commander, as I say, should we lower away.
13875. That means, should you put people into the boat, I suppose? - Yes. We had had orders to swing out, so the boat was in the process of being swung out.
13876. Now, we can take No. 6. You say you went to that? - Yes.
13877. You saw that boat filled, did you? - Yes.
13878. It was filled under your supervision? - Yes.
13879. Now, tell us about the way in which it was done and the orders given as to who should get into it? - As a matter of fact, I put them in myself. There were no orders. I stood with one foot on the seat just inside the gunwale of the boat, and the other foot on the ship’s deck, and the women merely held out their wrist, their hand, and I took them by the wrist and hooked their arm underneath my arm.
13880. You have not told us anything yet about the preference being given to women? - The order had been received from the Commander.
       The Commissioner: He has told us about the order given by the Captain.
13881. (The Solicitor-General.) I see. (To the Witness.) And that is the order you carried out? - Yes.
13882. And then was No. 6 lowered away? - No. 6 was lowered away.
13883. Was boat No. 6 filled? - It was filled with a reasonable regard to safety. I did not count the people going in.
13884. But you exercised your judgment about it? - Yes.
13885. It was filled as much as you thought was safe in the circumstances? - Yes.
13886. In your judgment is it possible to fill these lifeboats when they are hanging as full as you might fill them when they are water borne? - Most certainly not.
13887. (The Commissioner.) Is that due to the weak construction of the lifeboats or to the insufficiency of the falls? - A brand new fall, I daresay, would have lowered the boats down and carried the weight, but it would hardly be considered a seamanlike proceeding as far as the sailor side of it goes, but I certainly should not think that the lifeboats would carry it without some structural damage being done - buckling, or something like that.
13888. And had you those considerations in mind in deciding how many people should go in the boat? - Yes.
       1. (The Solicitor-General.) The convenient thing, my Lord, is just to refer your Lordship to the evidence of Poingdestre. It is at page 83. It fits together here. Perhaps I may read a few questions, and Mr. Lightoller will hear them. It is Question 2958. He is asked, “Do you know how it comes that there were not more than 42 put into this boat?” That is boat No. 6? - Yes.
13889. And he says, “Well, the reason is that the falls would not carry any more. (Q.) You mean somebody was frightened of the falls? - (A.) Yes, the Second Officer, Mr. Lightoller.” Did you say anything aloud about it? - No.
13890. It is merely a conclusion the man came to? - Yes, I daresay, a seamanlike conclusion.
13891. You agree as many people were put into it as, in your judgment, was safe when it was in that position? - Yes.
13892. We are told about 40 or 42? - Yes, about that.
13893. Then did you give the order to lower away? - Yes.
13894. Did you give any further order to that boat, No. 6, as to what it was to do or where it was to go? - Not that I remember. I knew there was, if I may mention it, this light on the port bow about two points; I had already been calling many of the passengers’ attention to it, pointing it out to them and saying there was a ship over there, that probably it was a sailing ship as she did not appear to come any closer, and that at daylight very likely a breeze would spring up and she would come in and pick us up out of the boats, and generally reassuring them by pointing out the light; but whether I told them to pull towards the light I really could not say. I might have done and I might not.
13895. Here is a boat with only 42 people in it, and when it is water-borne everybody agrees it would safely carry more then? - Yes.
13896. Did you give any orders with the object of getting more people into it when it was in the water? - Yes, I see what you are alluding to now, the gangway doors. I had already sent the boatswain and 6 men or told the boatswain to go down below and take some men with him and open the gangway doors with the intention of sending the boats to the gangway doors to be filled up. So with those considerations in mind I certainly should not have sent the boats away.
13897. That is what I meant. Did you give any order or direction to the man in charge of boat No. 6 that he was to keep near or was to go to the gangway doors? - Not that I remember. The boats would naturally remain within hail.
13898. You do not recollect whether you gave any actual order to the man in charge? - No.
13899. It is just as well to read this question and answer. This man Poingdestre was asked, “Did Mr. Lightoller give you any orders as to what to do with the boat?”; and the answer was, “He gave me orders before the boat was lowered what to do. (Q.) What orders did he give you? - (A.) To lay off and stand by close to the ship”? - Perhaps I did; I daresay.
13900. Now let us pursue the two things you have mentioned. You say you gave those orders to the boatswain to go down with some men and open the gangway doors? - Yes.
13901. Will you point out on the starboard side where they are? - There are gangway doors one on each side there (Pointing on the model).
13902. About where you are pointing now? - Yes, there are two doors one above and one below on the starboard side, but there is only one on E deck on the port side. The other gangway doors are here.
13903. In the afterpart? - Yes.
       1. What deck do those gangway doors open from? - E deck.
13904. Were your orders general, or did they refer to one set of gangway doors in particular? - General.
13905. Did the boatswain go off after receiving the orders? - As far as I know, he went down.
       The Commissioner: Have we heard anything up to this time of these gangway doors.
       The Solicitor-General: I am not aware of having heard it, my Lord. There has been a suggestion made by a witness, I think, that it was so, but I do not think there has been any evidence about it. There was a suggestion, I know.
       The Commissioner: To open those doors?
13906. (The Solicitor-General.) Yes. (To the Witness.) Can you help us when it was that you gave this order to the boatswain? I mean, can you give it us by reference to boats. Was it before you had lowered No. 4 to the A deck or after? - I think it was after and whilst I was working at No. 6 boat.
13907. If the boat was down by the head, the opening of those doors on E deck in the forward part of the ship would open her very close to the water, would it not? - Yes.
13908. When you gave the order, had you got in mind that the ship was tending to go down by the head, or had not you yet noticed it? - I cannot say that I had noticed it particularly.
13909. Of course, you know now the water was rising up to E deck? - Yes, of course it was.
13910. Did the boatswain execute those orders? - That I could not say. He merely said “Aye, aye, sir,” and went off.

Page 315

13911. Did not you see him again? - Never.
13912. And did not you ever have any report as to whether he had executed the order? - No.
13913. I had better just put it. As far as you know, were any of those gangway doors open at any time? - That I could not say. I do not think it likely, because it is most probable the boats lying off the ship would have noticed the gangway doors, had they succeeded in opening them.
13914. You say you gave that order, as far as you recollect, when you were dealing with that boat No. 6? - Yes, boat No. 6.
       The Commissioner: I have the reference now. It is in the evidence of Jewell on page 18, Questions 131 and 132.
       The Solicitor-General: Yes, my Lord: “What were the orders about - what was she to do?” He speaks of Mr. Murdoch giving orders. “He” - that is, Mr. Murdoch - “told us to stand by the gangway.”
       The Commissioner: He says this door is open continually. He goes on to say this. The question is put to him - I do not know who was examining him.
       The Solicitor-General: I was I think, my Lord.
       The Commissioner: “Amidships, and the answer is yes. (Q.) Where the gangway would be if she were in port, I suppose? - (A.) Yes, that is right.” If this witness is right, he does not seem to know where the gangway was.
       Sir Robert Finlay: In the next question he points it out.
       The Solicitor-General: Your Lordship asked him to go to the model.
       The Commissioner: “Just go to the model again and show me where about on that model the waterline was, and where the gangway was, so that I may know where the boat was,” and then he indicates. “There is one door there, and there is the waterline right along here. There are several gangway doors in the side; there is one about there somewhere, and one about there.” That, of course, tells me nothing, and I do not remember where he pointed. I am told that he pointed further abaft the point indicated by Mr. Lightoller.
       The Solicitor-General: I see Mr. Wilding here; no doubt he will tell us where, in fact, they are, if your Lordship would like it now.
13915. (The Commissioner.) It occurred to me that Mr. Lightoller was right, because I see the rows of portholes? - (The Witness.) There are the gangway doors here (Pointing on the model).
       The Commissioner: If you look you will see the row of portholes is interrupted.
       The Solicitor-General: Yes. Is that the place where you are pointing now, Mr. Wilding?
       Mr. Wilding: Yes, there is a door marked there.
       The Commissioner: Is it marked there on the model? - (Mr. Wilding.) Yes, my Lord, here (Pointing on the model).
13916. (The Solicitor-General.) As a matter of accuracy, is that open on to the floor of E deck or D deck? - E deck.
13917. (Sir Robert Finlay.) I am told there is also a gangway on D deck forward? - On the starboard side.
       The Commissioner: On D deck.
       Sir Robert Finlay: Yes.
       The Solicitor-General: One above and one below.
       Sir Robert Finlay: That is on the starboard side forward.
13918. (The Commissioner.) It appears to me that you would be very unlikely to order the forward gangway door to be opened. You might get the head so deep in the water that she might ship water through that gangway door? - Of course, my Lord, I did not take that into consideration at that time; there was not time to take all these particulars into mind. In the first place, at this time I did not think the ship was going down.
13919. I remember what you said yesterday as to what you were told when you were in your bunk that the water was up to F deck; you knew that it was a very serious state of things? - Yes, I knew it was serious.
13920. And I suppose you realised - I do not know whether you did - but I suppose you realised that the ship was taking in more and more water as you were attending to these boats? - Yes, my Lord, and yet I did not think at that time that the ship was going down.
13921. (The Solicitor-General.) Just to get boat No. 6 right. The Quartermaster, whose name was Hichens, was in that No. 6 boat. Your Lordship will find a reference to him at page 43; he confirms exactly, of course, what Mr. Lightoller is saying. It is Question 1089, “Who ordered you to another boat? - (A.) Mr. Lightoller. (Q.) And to what boat”? - (A.) No. 6 boat. (Q.) Is that a lifeboat on the port side? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) It would be the third on the port side from forward, would it not?” and he says it was the second or third boat to be lowered on the port side. (To the Witness.) I understand from you it was the second because you had lowered boat No. 4 to A deck? - Yes.
       The Commissioner: What question is it?
13922. (The Solicitor-General.) I was looking at Question 1089. He says it was the second or third boat, and it appears it was really the second. “(1096) She had only been swung out ready? - (A.) That is all. (Q.) And then what happened - who was giving orders then? - (A.) Mr. Lightoller was in charge of the port side. (Q.) Did you hear any order given? - (A.) Yes, I heard the captain say ‘Women and children first.’” “(Q.) 1106. How many people did you take on board? - (A.) 42, all told.” (To the Witness.) I think a gentleman named Major Peuchen was one of them? - Yes.
13923. Did you order him into the boat? - I did.
13924. Very well. Now that is No. 6. I think that fairly gives us what you know about No. 6. There is nothing you want to add to it? - No, I do not think there is anything further to add.
13925. What is the next one that you dealt with? - Well, it was a boat further aft on the port side; its actual number I really could not say with accuracy. I am under the impression it was No. 8.
13926. Up to now, as I follow you, No. 4 has been lowered down to A deck? - Yes.
13927. That is all that has happened to it? - Yes.
13928. Just tell us in order what boat you dealt with next. It was No. 8 you think? - I think it was No. 8.
13929. (The Solicitor-General.) This is a boat, my Lord, about which we have not really as yet called any evidence. We have one man coming, if need be. (To the Witness.) Was the same course followed about No. 8? - Yes. I think, if I remember rightly, at No. 8 I left the lowering to the chief. He came along and, of course, being Senior Officer, took charge, and so I went then, I think, to No. 4 to complete the launching of No. 4.
13930. And I think you have told us it was the Chief Officer who gave this order to the passengers to go over to the starboard side? - Yes.
13931. As far as you recollect, was it you or was it he who determined how many people should go into this next boat, No. 8? - If it was No. 8 that the Chief Officer came to, I left it to him. I am afraid I cannot say with any degree of accuracy. If I was there I would decide who was to go in, and if he was there superintending he would naturally. I think it was No. 8 the Chief came to.
13932. Were there still women on the boat deck? - Yes.
13933. And was this general order that women and children should be dealt with first still observed? - Yes.
13934. Was the discipline good? - Excellent.
13935. The men passengers behaving themselves well? - Splendidly.
13936. Will you just take us to the next point after this boat No. 8. It was No. 8? - Yes. From there I went to No. 4.
13937. That is, returning? - Returning forward, down on to A deck. The windows were down. I placed some chairs against the window and formed a step, and standing outside myself, the same order was proceeded with, except that the boat was triced right close into the wire.
13938. You were able to pull it in? - Yes, and make it fast right into the wire.

Page 316

13939. You were dealing with the boat hanging on the port side. Did you notice whether the list was serious? - It could not have been serious.
13940. Not even then? - No; because I was able to stand with one foot on the ship and one foot on the boat. Had the list been serious, the boat hanging on the davits from the boat deck down to A deck, it would have been too far away for me to stride the distance.
13941. (The Commissioner.) You could stride from the “Titanic” to the hanging boat? - Yes.
13942. There could have been scarcely any list at all? - Very little.
13943. No perceptible list? - Very little. I think the ship righted. When the order was given to the passengers to go to the starboard side I am under the impression that a great many went over and the ship got a righting movement and maintained it, and then the passengers came back again in great numbers.
13944. You mean to say the shifting of the passengers on the deck would affect the list? - Yes, my Lord. At that height, and with that number of passengers, I think it would. Mr. Wilding would be able to decide that.
13945. It would have a very small effect, would it not? - I am under the impression the fact of her being low down in the water and the stern higher out of the water it would have more effect than if she were on an even keel under ordinary circumstances.
13946. Surely it would have more effect if she were high up out of the water? - I may be wrong, my Lord, but I think it would have more effect with her head down in the water and her stern out - suspended amidships.
13947. It was so slight that you could stretch with your legs from the deck of the “Titanic” to the hanging out boat? - Yes.
13948. (The Solicitor-General.) Were you able to do that before the boat was drawn in and triced to the wire? - I was.
13949. Were women and children helped into No. 4? - Yes, through the windows.
       The Solicitor-General: From A deck. Boat No. 4, my Lord, is the boat in which a man named Scott and a man named Ranger ultimately got. It is the boat, if your Lordship remembers, which came back and those two men at the last moment slipped down the falls from the davits on the afterend and got into this boat, and their evidence is that there were 40 people in the boat.
       The Commissioner: Yes, I have taken it down as 42, I think.
13950. (The Solicitor-General.) No, my Lord, I have finished with No. 6, which was 42, and I am now speaking of No. 4. It may be that there were 40 women and two seamen, but I am speaking of No. 4 now.
       The Witness: May I ask when these men say they got into the boat.
13951. Yes. You did not order them in. There are two witnesses who say that at the last moment (they were two greasers) they climbed down the falls from the davits at the afterend? - The afterend of the boat deck?
13952. Yes? - Not on the falls from which the boat was hanging?
13953. No, and No. 4 had come round and picked them up. What I want to call your attention to is that there were 40 people, there or thereabouts in boat No. 4 which is a full size lifeboat. Did you decide when the boat was full enough to be lowered down? - Yes.
13954. In your judgment had you filled it as full as you safely could? - Yes.
13955. So that it was not lowered down until you gave directions that it should be? - No.
13956. (The Solicitor-General.) If your Lordship cares to have the reference, Scott will be found at page 130, and Ranger deals with the number on page 104. (To the Witness.) Now we have got rid of No. 6 and what you think was No. 8 and No. 4. What was the next one to which you directed your attention? - The collapsible boat.
13957. (The Commissioner.) You had ordered the gangway to be lower, as I understand? - What gangway, my Lord?
13958. The gangway in the forward part of the ship? - I had ordered the doors to be opened.
13959. Well, that is what I mean. You had ordered the gangway doors to be opened? - Yes.
13960. And the gangway to be lowered from that point? - If there were sufficient time. We had a companion ladder.
13961. I do not see what is the use of the door if you do not lower the gangway? - We should probably lower the rope ladder; that was our idea.
13962. That is the same thing as a gangway. You would provide some sort of communication between the opening of the door and the boat in the water below? - Exactly.
13963. Whether it was a gangway or a rope ladder, it does not matter. You had ordered this door to be opened? - Yes.
13964. There was no use having that open unless there was some sort of gangway? - No.
13965. Now, was that for the purpose of putting more people into the boats as soon as they become water-borne? - Yes.
13966. Was that the object? - That was the object.
13967. Now I want to ask you this question. I think you have been asked it already. Did you give any directions (I think you said you did not remember) to the boats to remain about the gangway door? - No, my Lord.
13968. You did not? - Not that I remember.
13969. You do not remember? - Not that I remember.
13970. Would they then know that those gangway doors would be open - would the men in the boat know that those gangway doors would be open? - Hanging about the ship they could not very well fail to see if the gangway doors were open - the light shining through, the blaze of lights; and they would very soon be hailed by people at the gangway doors. The boatswain was down there. He has to use a little common sense as well, and when he has opened the gangway door he would naturally hail a boat, and tell them “starboard gangway door open,” “the port gangway door open,” and so let them know. On a calm night like that your Lordship will know the voice will carry a long way.
13971. You put as many into No. 4 boat as you thought safe? - Yes.
13972. That was about 40. We know some of the boats carried considerably more than 40? - 65.
13973. Would the men in the boat to whom you had said, “That boat is full; lower her,” know that she was capable of taking more when she became water borne? - Yes, my Lord.
13974. They would know? - They would know.
13975. (The Solicitor-General.) Had you given orders for these boats to remain within hail? - Not that I remember. If a man asked me going away it is quite likely that I should, but I cannot say with distinctness that I did give the order.
13976. You were calling attention to this light on your port bow? - Yes.
13977. At any rate you were calling the passengers’ attention to it? - Yes.
13978. Cannot you help us. Did you or did you not give any directions to these boats which might be taken to mean that they were to row to the light? - No.
13979. Were they to go away or were they to stay by the ship? - No, I cannot remember giving the boats any directions at all.
13980. You were saying that after No. 6 and No. 8 and No. 4 you then went to one of the collapsible boats? - Yes.
13981. Which one was it? - The port collapsible boat underneath the emergency davits.
13982. That is not the one which was on the deck of the officers’ house? - No.
13983. But it is the one immediately behind the emergency boat, on the port side? - Yes.
13984. Now tell us in order what you did about this collapsible boat? - The tackles were already rounded up when I got on the boat deck; we lifted the gunwale of the boat, which opens it up, hooked on the tackles, put it over the side; Mr. Wilde was there too at this time.
13985. And you were helping as well? - Yes.

Page 317

13986. Did you use the rope falls that were on the davits? - Yes.
13987. At this time was the emergency boat, which was swung out on the port side, No. 2, gone? - That had gone.
13988. Had you had nothing to do with that No. 2 boat going? - Nothing.
13989. And you know nothing about that boat? - I know nothing about that boat.
13990. There would be the davits, and this collapsible boat a little way behind? - Yes.
13991. And you used the same falls, did you? - Yes.
13992. Did you get the collapsible boat swung out? - Yes, swung out and loaded up.
13993. Was it a piece of work that was easily done? - Nothing very difficult about it, except you just work your davits in. It is not difficult. It takes a little time to swing your davits in and hook on.
13994. And so you got her swung out? - Yes.
13995. And ready, I suppose, to take people into her? - Yes.
13996. Was she filled? What happened? - We had very great difficulty in filling her with women. As far as I remember she was eventually filled, but we experienced considerable difficulty. Two or three times we had to wait, and call out for women - in fact, I think on one - perhaps two - occasions, someone standing close to the boat said, “Oh, there are no more women,” and with that several men commenced to climb in. Just then, or a moment afterwards, whilst they were still climbing in, someone sang out on the deck, “Here are a couple more.” Naturally, I judged they were women.
13997. That meant a couple more women? - Yes, and the men got out of the boat again and put the women in. If I am quite right, I think this happened on two occasions?
13998. You say the men got out of the boat. Do you mean men passengers? - I really could not say.
13999. They gave up their places? - Yes.
14000. When that boat was filled she contained some men and some women, of course? - No men that I know of.
14001. Ultimately she was filled with women, the collapsible boat? - Yes, I believe it was a new boat, where a couple of Phillipinos or Chinese got in; they stowed away under the thwarts or something. But for that there were no men except crew - except the men I ordered in.
14002. Do you know how many people got into that collapsible boat? - I could not say.
14003. Did you fill her? - Yes, I filled her as full as I could.
14004. When that boat was filled ready to go away, as far as you could ascertain were there any other women thereabouts? - None whatever. I am under the impression that I could have put more in that boat and could have put some men in, but I did not feel justified in giving an order for men to get into the boat, as it was the last boat as far as I knew leaving the ship, and I thought it better to get her into the water safely with the number she had in; or, in other words, I did not want the boat to be rushed.
14005. Were there men passengers about? - There were plenty of people about, no doubt men passengers.
14006. Was good order being maintained then? - Splendid.
14007. And was there any attempt to rush that boat at all? - None whatever, but the men commenced to climb in when they heard there were no more women.
14008. You have described that, and you say they got out again? - Yes; without that there was nothing.
14009. You used an expression just now that as far as you knew it was the last boat to leave the ship. Can you tell us, had you been able to observe during all this time what was happening to the boats on the starboard side? - No, no sign of the starboard side. You cannot see across.
14010. That means you cannot tell? - No, I know nothing about the starboard side.
14011. (The Commissioner.) Do you mean she was the last boat to leave the ship from the port side? - The last boat launched from the port side. There was still one on the top of the quarters, but she was not launched, as a matter of fact.
14012. That was another collapsible boat on the top of the officers’ quarters? - Yes.
14013. That is what you mean, that she was the last boat to leave from the port side? - Yes.
14014. (The Solicitor-General.) Let us exhaust that to be sure. You have spoken of four lifeboats that were in the forward part of the port side. What about the four other lifeboats which were on the afterpart of the port side - Nos. 10, 12, 14 and 16? - When I went forward to No. 4 boat all the lifeboats were away on the port side with the exception of that one. Whether the last boat that I went to was No. 8 or No. 10 I cannot say. But it is sufficient there was no further need for me on the afterend of that deck; I went forward to No. 4 and that was the last lifeboat.
14015. That means that Nos. 10, 12, 14 and 16 had gone? - Yes.
14016. Can you give us any help as to the order that the boats on the afterpart of the starboard side had gone in? - No, I know nothing whatever about it.
14017. Then your evidence as to the order of the boats is limited to the port side? - Only to the port side.
14018. You did order this collapsible boat on the port side to be lowered down from the davits? - Yes.
14019. Did you notice how far she had to drop to get to the water? - Yes.
14020. Now how far had she to drop? - Ten feet.
14021. Is that ten feet from the rail of the boat deck? - Ten feet from where that emergency boat is hanging now (pointing on the model).
14022. And there she met the water? - Yes.
14023. (The Commissioner.) The fore part of the ship must have been under water? - A deck was under water.
14024. And the bridge must have been under water? - Almost immediately afterwards the water came from the stairway. There is a little stairway goes down here just abaft the bridge, which goes right down here and comes out on this deck for the use of the crew only and it was almost immediately after that the water came up that stairway on to the boat deck.
14025. (The Solicitor-General.) When you were filling that collapsible boat and preparing it to go, had you noticed that the water was over the bows of the ship? - I could not say the bows of the ship but I could see it coming up the stairway.
14026. You noticed that? - Yes.
14027. And the other people on the boat deck could see that too? - If they looked down the stairway, yes.
14028. There was good order you say up to the last? - Splendid.

14029. (The Solicitor-General.) My Lord, there is a little evidence about this boat. It is a man named Lucas. Your Lordship will find Lucas begins on page 49, and the facts about it are given on page 51. Lucas says that No. 16, which was the aftermost boat on the port side, had gone, and was, of the lifeboats on that side, the last to go. Then he says at Question 1518: “(Q.) What did you do then? - (A.) I went over to the starboard side to see if there was any more boats there. There were no more boats there, so I came back, and the boat was riding off the deck then. The water was up under the bridge then. The ladies sung out there was no sailor in the boat and no plugs, so I was a sailor, and I jumped into the boat.” He points to the place where it is, and says it is “a surf boat; they call them collapsible boats.” Your Lordship will see in the next column, at Question 1538: “(Q.) Who got into her? - (A.) About 40 women;” and then he says: “I found three men in the boat afterwards.” Apparently they were the two.
       The Witness: Hardy was one I ordered in, I remember - a steward.

Page 318

14030. He says two foreign passengers? - Those were the ones I heard about afterwards.
14031. You did not know they had got in? - No, I did not.
14032. They apparently were hiding. Then as far as you knew was there no man except the sailors in any of the boats which you saw lowered? - None, with the one exception of the passenger I ordered in, Major Peuchen.
14033. You ordered him in? - Yes.
14034. That applies to Nos. 4, 6 and 8? - Whatever boats I worked at.
14035. Had you time to do anything more after you got that collapsible boat afloat? - I called for men to go up on the deck of the quarters for the collapsible boat up there. The afterend of the boat was underneath the funnel guy. I told them to swing the afterend up. There was no time to open her up and cut the lashings adrift. Hemming was the man with me there, and they then swung her round over the edge of the coamings to the upper deck, and then let her down on to the boat deck. That is the last I saw of her for a little while.
14036. There was no time to open her up at all? - No, the water was then on the boat deck.
14037. Can you tell us, this last one you speak of, whether there was time to open her; was she ever really cast clear of the ship? She would be lashed, of course, to something or other. Were her lashings cut away? - Her lashings would be cut away before we could get her off the side of the house and put her on the deck.

[There was no question 14038]

14039. That shows she was free of the ship? - Free of the ship.
       1. We have to piece it out. We have some evidence about one collapsible boat, that the after-fall was cut, and it was doubtful whether the other one was cut. This boat, I understand, was never put on the falls at all? - The one I am speaking of?
14040. Yes? - No, it was not put on the falls at all.
14041. Then there would be no occasion to cut that away? - None whatever.
14042. Could you see which of the two this was, because there are two on the deck house, are not there? - One on each side, yes.
14043. Which of the two was it - which side? - The port side.
14044. That is the one you are speaking of? - Yes.
14045. You say it was pushed on to the boat deck, and the boat deck was awash? - Yes.
14046. Could you see by that time whether there was any time to get her to the falls or not? - Oh, no, no time.
14047. Then tell us your last minute or two on the ship. What did you do? - I went across to the starboard side of the officers’ quarters, on the top of the officers’ quarters, to see if I could do anything on the starboard side. Well, I could not.
14048. And coming over to the starboard side on the roof of the officers’ quarters, could you see any other officers? - I saw the First Officer working at the falls of the starboard emergency boat, obviously with the intention of overhauling them and hooking on to the collapsible boat on their side.
14049. The other collapsible boat? - Yes.
14050. That would be Mr. Murdoch? - Yes.
14051. Were there others with him helping? - There were a number round there helping.
14052. Then what happened? - Well, she seemed to take a bit of a dive, and I just walked into the water.
14053. Had you got a lifebelt? - I had.
14054. You had better just tell us what your own experiences were. What happened to you? - Well, I was swimming out towards the head of the ship, the crow’s-nest. I could see the crow’s-nest. The water was intensely cold, and one’s natural instinct was to try to get out of the water. I do not know whether I swam to the foremast with that idea, but of course I soon realised it was rather foolish, so I turned to swim across clear of the ship to starboard. The next thing I knew I was up against that blower on the fore part of the funnel. There is a grating.
14055. Just show us what it is? - (The Witness pointed on the model.) The fore part of the funnel, the same as the one on the afterpart here.
14056. Was it the platform? - The platform goes right down the stokehold; the one coming along shoots right down into the stokehold.
14057. You found yourself against that? - Yes, the water rushing down held me there a little while. The water was rushing down this blower.
14058. Did it drag you against it? - It held me against the blower.
14059. Against the mouth of it? - Yes. After a while there seemed to be a rush of air from down below, and I was blown away from it.
14060. Air coming out of the ship, as it were? - Yes.
14061. Had you been dragged below the surface? - Yes.
14062. Have you any idea, were you dragged a long way down? - It seemed a good long while; I do not suppose it was many moments, though.
14063. Then you came up to the surface? - Yes.
14064. (The Commissioner.) Can you swim with these lifebelts on? - There is no necessity to swim; you can paddle, they hold you high in the water.
14065. You cannot sink, I understand; but can you swim? - You can paddle along; you cannot swim because you cannot get your breast deep down in the water.
14066. You cannot swim as well with a lifebelt on as you can without? - Not nearly. I may say that I have heard since that the gymnasium instructor refused to put one on for that reason. He could swim far better and get clear of people and things without it.
14067. The man who can swim well is far better off without the lifebelt? - As far as the swimming goes, except that if you are taken below the surface it brings you up much quicker.
14068. (The Solicitor-General.) When you came up where did you find yourself? - I found myself alongside of the collapsible boat, which I had previously launched on the port side, the one I had thrown on to the boat deck.
14069. The one still shut up? - Yes, still shut up, bottom up.
14070. Were you able to make use of it to clamber on to it? - Not at that time. I just held on to something, a piece of rope or something, and was there for a little while, and then the forward funnel fell down. It fell within 3 or 4 inches of the boat. It lifted the boat bodily and threw her about 20 feet clear of the ship as near as I could judge.
14071. Did you notice when you came up to the surface and found this collapsible boat near you whether the whole of the ship had disappeared? - Oh, no.
14072. She had not? - No. The forward funnel was still there - all the funnels were above water.
14073. (The Commissioner.) When you first came up? - When I first came up.
14074. (The Solicitor-General.) I do not know whether you can help us at all in describing what happened to the ship. You were engaged and had other things to think about; but what did happen to the ship? Can you tell us at all? - Are you referring to the reports of the ship breaking in two?
14075. Yes? - It is utterly untrue. The ship did not and could not have broken in two.
14076. (The Commissioner.) If you saw it - if you saw what happened, tell us what it was? - After the funnel fell there was some little time elapsed. I do not know exactly what came or went, but the next thing I remember I was alongside this collapsible boat again, and there were about half a dozen standing on it. I climbed on it, and then turned my attention to the ship. The third if not the second funnel was still visible, certainly the third funnel was still visible. The stern was then clear of the water.

Page 319

14077. Which do you call the second and third? - Numbering them from forward, my Lord.
14078. The second was visible? - The third was visible - I am not sure if the second was visible, but I am certain the third was visible, and she was gradually raising her stern out of the water. Even at that time I think the propellers were clear of the water. That I will not be certain of.
14079. Had the funnel broken away? - Only the forward one.
14080. But you are not sure about the second one? - I am not sure whether that was below water or not, that I cannot say.
14081. That is what I mean. I want to know from you. Was it below water in the sense that the ship had sunk so as to immerse it in the water, or had it broken adrift? - No, the second funnel was immersed.
14082. It appears to me, looking at that model, that if that was so the stern must have been very well up in the air? - Well, I daresay it was, my Lord; it would be.
14083. And the propellers all visible? - Yes, clear of the water. That is my impression.
14084. (The Solicitor-General.) When you say the third funnel was visible I understand you to mean part of it? - Yes, some part of the funnel. As a matter of fact, I am rather under the impression that the whole of the third funnel was visible.
       The Commissioner: Is it possible to turn that model so that we could see what the position of the ship would be?
       The Solicitor-General: I understand it cannot be tipped in that way.
       1. (The Commissioner.) It seems to me the ship would be almost perpendicular? - She did eventually attain the absolutely perpendicular.
          The Solicitor-General: Perhaps this profile will help you. (Handing the same to the Witness.)
14085. (The Commissioner.) Just take that, and turn that little wooden model into the position. Now the book you have here represents the waterline? - Yes. (The Witness indicated the position with the small profile model.)
14086. And that is the position? - Yes, somewhere about that. I cannot say exactly whether the third funnel was clear of the water or not. I am under the impression that was the position. I noticed the ship was quite at that angle. (Describing.)
14087. (The Solicitor-General.) Would you indicate with your other hand whereabouts you are when you are looking at it? - Here. (Pointing.)
14088. You are somewhat about there? - Somewhere about here.
14089. (The Commissioner.) You are, in fact, on a level with the top of No. 2 funnel? - About that, my Lord.
14090. (The Solicitor-General.) As you looked at it then, could you tell us whether there were any lights burning on the part that was not submerged? - I do not think so.
       1. Your recollection is that there were not? - Yes.
14091. (The Commissioner.) When the ship reached that point that you have just described, were many people thrown into the water? - That I could not say, my Lord.
14092. (The Solicitor-General.) Did you continue watching the afterpart sufficiently to be able to tell us whether the afterpart settled on the water at all? - It did not settle on the water.
14093. You are confident it did not? - Perfectly certain.
       The Solicitor-General: Your Lordship knows a lot of witnesses have said their impression was the afterpart settled on the water.
14094. (The Commissioner.) I have heard that over and over again. (To the Witness.) That you say is not true? - That is not true, my Lord. I was watching her keenly the whole time.
       The Commissioner: I had a difficulty in realising how it could possibly be that the afterpart of the ship righted itself for a moment.
       The Solicitor-General: Your Lordship may remember, perhaps, that the baker, who was on the ship at this moment we are now dealing with, and was climbing aft, said he heard the rending of metal - of metal breaking.
       The Commissioner: Yes, he was the man who got to the poop.
14095. (The Solicitor-General.) Yes, he climbed right aft; at this moment he would be on the poop. (To the Witness.) Your evidence is that the ship remained stiff? - Yes.
14096. Now just carry it on, did you continue watching her until she disappeared? - I did.
14097. Just tell us what happened, as you saw it? - After she reached an angle of 50 or 60 degrees, or something about that, there was this rumbling sound, which I attributed to the boilers leaving their beds and crushing down on or through the bulkheads. The ship at that time was becoming more perpendicular, until finally she attained the absolute perpendicular - somewhere about that position (describing), and then went slowly down. She went down very slowly until the end, and then, after she got so far (describing), the afterpart of the second cabin deck, she, of course, went down much quicker.
14098. You have spoken of these rumblings which you heard, which you attributed to the boilers losing their places. Did you hear anything which you would call an explosion? - No. The only thing that I should attribute to explosions - which might have been attributed to explosions - was when I was, in the first place, sucked to the blower, and, in the second place, just shortly before the forward funnel falling, there was an up-rush of certainly warm water, but whether it was caused by an explosion or what, I could not say.
14099. Of course, if you were under water at that time you were not in a very good position to hear it? - No.
       The Commissioner: I do not know what the explanation of this supposed explosion is. What was it that exploded?
14100. (The Solicitor-General.) What would you say, Mr. Lightoller? - It was either the cold water reaching the boilers, if boilers do not explode under those circumstances, which is quite an open question. Some say they do and a great many capable men certainly say they do not explode. If her boilers did not explode it was not from that, and must have been the rush of imprisoned air; and the heat would be caused merely through its coming from the stokehold.
14101. (The Solicitor-General.) One of the other officers has some information to give your Lordship. (To the Witness.) That was how it struck you and how you saw it at the time? - Yes.
14102. You say you saw some six people who had got to this collapsible boat. Were they men? - Yes.
14103. I think you said they were standing on it? - As far as I remember yes, standing or kneeling.
14104. What happened to you? - I climbed on to it.
14105. Then just tell us what was the course of events after that from your point of view? - There were several people in the water round about us who struggled towards the boat and swarmed towards the boat and got on to it during the night occasionally. Of course we could not paddle that boat about; it was absolutely water-logged.
14106. I suppose it was shut up in the sort of sense that that little profile which is in your hand is shut up? - Yes, just upside down like that bottom up (describing). Do you mean she was shut up like that?
14107. Yes? - No, she is a flat boat like that. She consists of the shape of the boat and two bottoms divided into compartments which contain air. When the boat is turned over it is quite flat on the surface of the water.
14108. Like a raft? - Exactly.
14109. There are six and you yourself were there and others got to it? - Yes, as far as I know during the night. I did not count them. It was merely an estimate from other people. There were nearly 28 or 30 people on this raft in the morning.
14110. (The Commissioner.) Do not you know how many were taken off to the “Carpathia”? - No, my Lord, I do not. We were taken into a lifeboat before we went on board the “Carpathia.”

Page 320

14111. (The Solicitor-General.) That is between the going down of the “Titanic” and dawn? - Yes.
14112. (The Commissioner.) When were you taken off this collapsible boat? - Just at daybreak.
14113. By what boat? - I do not know the number.
14114. Were you all taken by one boat? - Yes.
14115. And how many were in the boat that took you off when you got on board? - I counted those myself; standing in the stern I counted 65 heads.
14116. That included those that had been taken from the collapsible? - Including those taken off that boat, 65 heads. I could not myself see anyone who sat in the bottom of the boat. I judge there were at least 75 in the boat.
14117. Which boat are you talking of? - The lifeboat; I do not know the number.
14118. (The Solicitor-General.) I have the evidence of the chief baker, a man named Joughin, who kept afloat in the water till dawn and he had told us at dawn he saw an upturned boat and made his way to it, and I think someone gave him a hand and kept him up in the water for some time. Is that the collapsible boat you are speaking of? - I do not remember his being there.
14119. (The Commissioner.) How many were on this collapsible boat when you were transferred to the lifeboat? - I did not count them, my Lord, but I have been given to understand since from the men who saw it and the men on the raft, that there were 28 or 30 on there.
14120. And then when you got into the lifeboat, the total number then on the lifeboat when you were added to those that were already there was 75? - 75.
14121. So there would have been about 45 on this lifeboat when you approached her or when she approached you - that is right? - Yes. I may say there were two lifeboats approached us.
14122. Did not you all get into one? - We all got into one. This being the lighter one of the two, I chose it.
14123. You all got into her? - Yes.
14124. (The Solicitor-General.) According to your figures about 45 people were on that lifeboat when you were taken off and put on board her? - If the figures that there were 28 or 30 on the raft were correct. I do not vouch for those.
       The Solicitor-General: May I give your Lordship the reference. Joughin, on page 142 tells you what his view is of this boat.
       The Commissioner: That is the baker.
       The Solicitor-General: Yes. At Question 6085 he says, “Just as it was breaking daylight I saw what I thought was some wreckage, and I started to swim towards it slowly. When I got near enough I found it was a collapsible not properly upturned, but on its side, with an officer and I should say about 20 or 25 men standing on the top of it. (The Commissioner.) With an officer and what? - (A.) I should say roughly about 25 men standing on the top - well on the side, not on the top. (The Solicitor-General.) Do you know which officer it was? - (A.) Yes, Mr. Lightoller. (Q.) Mr. Lightoller and you think about 20 or 25 people? - (A.) Yes. (The Commissioner.) Men, he said. (The Solicitor-General.) Yes, men, my Lord? - (A.) Yes, all men.”
14125. I daresay you will remember he said there was not room for him, and somebody recognised him. I think one of the cooks was on it, and held out his hand and helped to keep him afloat for a bit, and later on there was a lifeboat which approached and according to Joughin called out that there was room for 10 people. Do you remember that? - No.
14126. (The Solicitor-General.) Your Lordship sees Question 6106, “They got within about 50 yards and they sung out that they could only take 10. So I said this to Maynard, ‘Let go my hand,’ and I swam to meet it, so that I would be one of the 10”? - The only reference to numbers was this; when I saw the boats I could faintly distinguish them. I had my whistle in my pocket. I whistled by way of showing it was an officer that was calling, and I asked them if they could take some of us on board, and I said if they could manage to take half-a-dozen - because we were sinking then - it would lighten us up so that we could continue afloat. That was the only reference to numbers I heard.
14127. I understand you cannot actually give us the number of the boat which this was? - No, I never inquired.
14128. Were you transferred to her, and did you take command of her? - I did.
14129. I think I can identify it, my Lord. It must have been boat No. 14, because your Lordship will find that a man named Scarrott has given evidence on page 26. I am not quite sure. (To the Witness.) On this upturned collapsible boat, when the morning came and the lifeboat appeared, had any women got on to it at all? - None.
14130. You are sure about that? - Quite.
14131. Then I am afraid I am wrong about it. It must have been the other one.
       The Commissioner: The reference to page 26 is not right?
14132. (The Solicitor-General.) No, my Lord, I am sorry. (To the Witness.) Could not you give us the name of anybody who was on board the lifeboat that you were transferred to and took charge of. You see, we want to trace it out? - Oh, yes, Bride was on board, the Marconi operator, of course; that is the boat that Phillips was on. There were two or three died during the night.
14133. (The Solicitor-General.) I think I can get at it, my Lord. (To the Witness.) Did you ascertain that the lifeboat that helped you had already got some people from another collapsible? - No, I do not think that was the boat; it was one of the later boats to be taken on board the “Carpathia,” and therefore would be one of those that was turned adrift. It was the last boat to get to the “Carpathia,” as a matter of fact, I think.
14134. Sooner than occupy more time about it now I will have it looked at, and we will try to work it out. If I may say so, the distribution of people in boats and what they did after the calamity does not appear to be very important.
       The Commissioner: No.
14135. (The Solicitor-General.) It is important what happened to the boats before the calamity. We will leave it, Mr. Lightoller, and try to work it out. There are just one or two general things we want to know. Can you help us at all about this. There were third class passengers who, in the ordinary course of things would not use that boat deck at all. Now, as far as you saw, was anything done to help those third class people to get a fair chance. What happened? - I am not in a position to say what was done, because I never went to a place that would justify me in saying whether anything was or was not done. There is merely the fact that I know there were plenty of third class passengers on the deck, and third class women that I helped in.
14136. You are sure of that? - Oh, I am quite sure - great numbers of them. I naturally noticed - I could pretty well distinguish.
       The Commissioner: I suppose, Sir John, there are actual records of the numbers saved, about which there can be no doubt?
       The Solicitor-General: Yes, my Lord; the Attorney-General gave the figures.
       The Commissioner: I know in his opening he did, and I suppose they will be proved.
       The Solicitor-General: They can be proved.
       The Commissioner: The observation is that the percentage of third class passengers saved is much smaller than the percentage of first class passengers?
       The Solicitor-General: Yes.
       The Commissioner: There is no doubt about that, apparently, if the Attorney-General’s figures were right.
14137. (The Solicitor-General.) That is the position, yes. (To the Witness.) There are two or three things one wants to ask about - those lights which you saw. You have told me about seeing a light and calling the passengers’ attention to it? - Yes.
14138. Now how did it bear? - A white light about two points on the port bow; whether it was one or two lights I could not say. As to whether it was a masthead light or a stern light, I could not say. I was perfectly sure it was a light attached to a vessel, whether a steamship or a sailing ship I could not say. I could not distinguish any other coloured lights, but merely it was a white light, distinct and plain.

Page 321

14139. Do you know whether your ship was swinging? - I do not know.
14140. (The Commissioner.) Can you form any estimate of the distance of the light from the “Titanic”? - Yes, my Lord; certainly not over 5 miles away.
14141. Was there any field ice or pack ice about the “Titanic” about this time, anything that could be seen anywhere? - No, my Lord.
14142. Then there was nothing to prevent a vessel, as far as you could see, coming to the “Titanic”? - Not as far as I could see. You are speaking of the nighttime?
14143. I am speaking of the time when you saw this light? - Yes, my Lord.
14144. (The Solicitor-General.) How soon did you observe the light? - I think it was when I was working at No. 6 or 8 boat - No. 6 boat, I should say, when I was helping the people into No. 6 boat.
14145. Did you observe it yourself, or was your attention called to it? - No, I noticed it.
14146. And, as you said, you called attention to it? - Yes.
14147. Other people saw it, too, I suppose. Did you continue to see it when you looked from that time forward until the ship went down, or did it disappear? - I cannot say how long I noticed it. I saw it perhaps half an hour, probably about half an hour. I can recollect seeing it for about half an hour.
14148. Have you any recollection of thinking that it had disappeared? - No.
       The Commissioner: Are you going to ask him about the rockets.
14149. (The Solicitor-General.) Yes, my Lord, I am going to ask him about that now. (To the Witness.) Throughout the time that you saw this light, as far as you can judge, did it remain stationary, or did it move at all? - Perfectly stationary as far as I can recollect.
14150. Now, then, about signals from your boat. You have rockets on board, have you not? Were they fired? - You quite understand they are termed rockets, but they are actually distress signals; they do not leave a trail of fire.
14151. Distress signals? - Yes. I just mention that, not to confuse them with the old rockets, which leave a trail of fire.
14152. Those are distress signals? - Actual distress signals.
14153. What sort of light do they show? - A shell bursts at a great height in the air, throwing out a great number of stars.
14154. What is the colour? - Principally white, almost white.
14155. How are they discharged; are they discharged from a socket? - In the first place, the charge is no more and no less than what you would use in a 12-pounder or something like that. In the rail is a gunmetal socket. In the base of this cartridge, you may call it, is a black powder charge. The hole down through the centre of the remainder is blocked up with a peg. You insert the cartridge in this socket; a brass detonator, which reaches from the top of the signal into the charge at the base, is then inserted in this hole. There is a wire running through this detonator, and the pulling of this wire fires that, and that, in turn, fires the charge at the base of the cartridge. That, exploding, throws the shell to a height of several hundred feet, which is nothing more or less than a time shell and explodes by time in the air.
14156. Had you yourself anything to do with sending up these distress signals? - No, my Lord.
14157. Did you hear any order given about them? - No.
14158. You merely saw they were being sent up? - Yes.
14159. I think it was Mr. Boxhall, who is here, who had something to do with sending them up? - I believe so.
14160. Did you notice at all how many were sent up or at what intervals? - I should roughly estimate somewhere about eight at intervals of a few minutes - five or six minutes, or something like that.
14161. One at a time? - Yes, all fired from the starboard side, as far as I know.
14162. You had a Morse apparatus on your ship? - One on each side.
14163. For sending signals by flash? - Exactly.
14164. Was that made use of? - It was on the port side.
14165. The side you were on? - Yes.
14166. Who did that? You did not do that? - No.
14167. Was the Morse signalling at the same time as the rockets or earlier or later? - I really could not say whether it was during the signalling or after.
14168. Have you been in a ship where distress signals have been used before? Do you know their use? - Yes.
14169. Are there signals of a definite kind and appearance that are known as distress signals? - Yes, there is no ship allowed on the high seas to fire a rocket or anything resembling a rocket unless she requires assistance.
14170. If you had seen signals like those sent up from another ship would you have known for certain what they were? - I have seen them and known immediately.
14171. We have heard something about companies’ signals. Do they resemble these at all? - In no way, to my knowledge.
14172. Would you have any difficulty in distinguishing one from the other? - I never have had.
14173. I think you told my Lord as far as you could see there was no ice at this time within range of sight? - No.
14174. When the dawn broke in the morning was there ice about then? - There were several icebergs scattered about.
14175. (The Commissioner.) But anything in the nature of pack ice? - Not that we saw then.
14176. (The Solicitor-General.) Did you see anything of the sort you call “growlers”? - No.
14177. What you saw were bergs then? - Bergs.
14178. What sort of distance did you see them off? - I should say the nearest must have been at least 10 miles away. That is a pretty rough estimate. I cannot say with any degree of accuracy now what the nearest was, it may have been less.
14179. What sort of height would you judge? - They ranged from a matter of 50 or 60 feet to perhaps 200 or 300 feet.
14180. There is one other matter. The Commander uses a megaphone, of course - a speaking trumpet? - Yes.
14181. After these boats had been launched and left the side [of the] ship, did you hear any orders or call given to any of them? - Yes.
14182. By whom? - By the Commander.
14183. Through the megaphone? - Yes.
14184. Did that happen more than once? - More than once, yes.
14185. What was the order? - To come back.
14186. Was he hailing any particular boats? - No. I heard the Commander two or three times hail through the megaphone to bring the boats alongside, and I presumed he was alluding to the gangway doors, giving orders to the boats to go to the gangway doors.
14187. (The Commissioner.) When was this? - During the time I was launching the boats on the port side, I could not give you any definite time.
14188. (The Solicitor-General.) You heard the orders given and you heard the orders repeated; could you gather at the time whether they were being obeyed or not? - No.
14189. You did not know one way or the other? - I did not know anything at all about it.
14190. I think that exhausts what I want about the actual incident? - May I say one thing, Sir, which I forgot yesterday?
14191. Do? - You were questioning me with regard to speed and asking had the Commander mentioned anything about speed. I have since recollected one particular instance if it does bear on the case at all. The Commander mentioned the fact and said: “If it does come on in the slightest degree hazy we shall have to go very slow.” That was when he came on the bridge from 9 to half-past, when we were talking. You were particularly asking if there was any reference to speed. That was the only one.

Page 322

14192. You have told us already that as far as your watch is concerned, it remained perfectly clear? - Yes.
14193. Mr. Murdoch unfortunately has lost his life and some of the others, and you had better just tell us - did you hear after the accident in the course of that hour and a half or two hours from any of your superiors any information at all about how they did come to run into this iceberg? - None whatever.
14194. No reference to what the weather had been after 10 o’clock? - No. The weather was perfectly clear when I came on deck after the accident, and the slightest degree of haze on the surface of the water would have been very noticeable, or, rather, I might put it the other way; it is proved that there was no haze by some of the boats noticing from the waterline this vessel’s lights. I think that has been mentioned, and if there had been the slightest degree of haze they would not have seen them.
14195. As far as you saw, did you see any change in the weather conditions at all while you were working, helping to get these boats out? - Absolutely none.
14196. Right up to the time the ship went down is it your view that the conditions were the same as they were between 6 and 10? - Precisely.
14197. Can you suggest at all how it can have come about that this iceberg should not have been seen at a greater distance? - It is very difficult indeed to come to any conclusion. Of course, we know now the extraordinary combination of circumstances that existed at that time which you would not meet again once in 100 years; that they should all have existed just on that particular night shows, of course, that everything was against us.
14198. (The Commissioner.) When you make a general statement of that kind I want you to particularise: What were the circumstances? - I was going to give them, my Lord. In the first place, there was no moon.
14199. That is frequently the case? - Very - I daresay it had been the last quarter or the first quarter. Then there was no wind, not the slightest breath of air. And most particular of all in my estimation is the fact, a most extraordinary circumstance, that there was not any swell. Had there been the slightest degree of swell I have no doubt that berg would have been seen in plenty of time to clear it.
14200. Wait a minute: No moon, no wind, no swell? - The moon we knew of, the wind we knew of, but the absence of swell we did not know of. You naturally conclude that you do not meet with a sea like it was, like a table top or a floor, a most extraordinary circumstance, and I guarantee that 99 men out of 100 could never call to mind actual proof of there having been such an absolutely smooth sea.
14201. But the swell got up later on? - Yes, almost immediately; after I was in the water I had not been on the raft, the upturned boat, more than half an hour or so before a slight swell was distinctly noticeable.
14202. We hear of one lady having been very sea-sick? - In the morning there was quite a breeze and we maintained our equilibrium with the greatest difficulty when the rough sea came towards us, and before we got the lifeboat alongside the “Carpathia” - I am pretty familiar with boats.
14203. Do not let me interrupt you; you were going to particularise the circumstances which you say combined to bring about this calamity. There was no moon, no wind, and no swell; is there anything else? - The berg into which we must have run in my estimation must have been a berg which had very shortly before capsized, and that would leave most of it above the water practically black ice.
14204. You think so? - I think so, or it must have been a berg broken from a glacier with the blue side towards us, but even in that case, had it been a glacier there would still have been the white outline that Captain Smith spoke about, with a white outline against, no matter how dark a sky, providing the stars are out and distinctly visible, you ought to pick it out in quite sufficient time to clear it at any time. That is to say, providing the stars are out and providing it is not cloudy. You must remember that all the stars were out and there was not a cloud in the sky, so that at any rate there was bound to be a certain amount of reflected light. Had it been field ice, had we been approaching field ice, of more or less extent, looking down upon it it would have been very visible. You would have been able to see that field ice five miles away, I should think. Had it been a normal iceberg with three sides and the top white with just a glimpse of any of the white sides they would have shown sufficient reflected light to have been noticeable a mile and a half or two miles distant. The only way in which I can account for it is that this was probably a berg which had overturned as they most frequently do, which had split and broken adrift; a berg will split into different divisions, into halves perhaps, and then it becomes top-heavy, and at the same time as it splits you have what are often spoken of as explosions and the berg will topple over. That brings most of the part that has been in the water above the water.
14205. Is there any other circumstance you wish to point out? - No, I think that is all.
14206. Just let us put that together. It is dark, in the sense that there is no moon, with a bright, starlight sky perfectly clear, but there is no wind or swell, and if there had been there would have been some motion of the water against the bottom iceberg, which would have been noticeable? - Yes.
14207. The iceberg, in your opinion, had probably quite recently turned turtle? - Yes.
14208. And was displaying black ice with nothing white about it - that is it, is it not? - That is about it.
14209. Does that, in your opinion, account for the man on the look-out not seeing the iceberg? - Yes.
14210. Can you suggest what steps ought to be taken, or can be taken, to avoid the recurrence of such a calamity? - I believe there are several.
14211. Let me put my question in another way? - I understand your Lordship.
14212. But I will put it in another way - could you suggest any means that can be taken to enable the look-out man to see an iceberg of such a kind under such circumstances? - It has been proposed to put searchlights on, but until we have practical experience with searchlights, I should be very loth to pass an opinion upon that.
14213. Is there anything else you can suggest? - No, I do not think so, my Lord.
14214. (The Solicitor-General.) Supposing a ship, in these circumstances, did not go so fast through the water, would that make it less likely that these conditions would produce so serious an accident? - Of course, if the ship was going slowly, the impact would be less.
14215. (The Commissioner.) If the ship had been doing what the “Californian” was doing, dead stopped, no calamity would have happened? - No; had we seen the ice pack before we got into contact with the berg, or if we had seen one of the bigger bergs, or anything except just happening to find that one particular berg.
14216. (The Solicitor-General.) We have had the evidence of the look-out man, you know, and the look-out man says that “it was a dark mass that came through the haze, and there was no white appearing until it was close alongside the ship, and that was just a fringe at the top.” If an iceberg such as you have described has a black side and a white side, it is just as likely that the black side is towards the ship as the other side? - No; you see three sides and the top will be white and there is only one side black. If you take the end of a glacier which is protruding out of a valley, or whatever it is, there are the two sides at the front and the top that are crystallised, and when it comes over the edge and breaks off short there is only this part at the back where it is broken away from the parent glacier which is black.

Page 323

14217. Do you mean that from whatever point you approached such an iceberg you ought to be able to see something white about it at a distance? - Yes.
14218. (The Commissioner.) There is another question I want to ask you. The crow’s-nest man said that the berg appeared to come, as it were, out of the haze. Is it possible that in the circumstances you have mentioned an iceberg might produce on the eyesight of these men the effect of a haze? - It ought not to.
       The Solicitor-General: I think I have asked what I wanted. It will save confusion perhaps if I tell your Lordship and tell the witness now that Mr. Boxhall, who roused him, sent me a note to say that although no doubt the witness is quite right in saying that he (Mr. Boxhall.) had said that water was up to the F deck, what Mr. Boxhall meant to convey whatever he said was that it was up to the G deck. When Mr. Boxhall comes he will tell us, but it will save confusion if we have that in mind.
       The Commissioner: Very well; that is quite sufficient.

Examined by Mr. SCANLAN.

14219. You are the senior officer of all the officers who have survived the “Titanic” disaster? - Yes.
14220. I want to ask you one question about the construction of the boat from the point of view of filling the lifeboats. Your Lordship asked if this had been referred to in the evidence before, and I may point out that it is referred to at page 208 in the evidence of James Henry Moore, who was the captain of the “Mount Temple,” at the foot of the second column of page 208, Question 9303 onwards to the end of that column.
       The Commissioner: Yes, I have read that.
14221. (Mr. Scanlan - To the Witness.) Did you know that it was intended, if the lifeboats were required to be used, that the boats might be filled with the crew, might take their crew, on the A deck and be lowered into the water and then filled from those gangway doors on E deck? - I do not quite follow you.
14222. Let me put this to you: You said that you ordered the gangway doors on E deck to be opened? - Yes.
14223. For what purpose? - Naturally for putting the passengers into the boat.
14224. I want you to explain to my Lord how you would put the passengers into the boat from the gangway doors? - Most probably by what we term a pilot ladder - a rope ladder. The men would be able to climb down the rope ladder.
14225. Had you such a rope ladder in readiness? - Oh, yes, plenty in the ship.
14226. For that purpose? - Yes.
14227. I think, just towards the end of your evidence, you stated to my learned friend that the Captain had ordered the boats through the megaphone to “Come to,” that is, to come along the ship’s side, and you said that his object was no doubt to get them near these gangway doors? - I think I said if I remember rightly that probably that may have been his object with reference to the gangway doors. He did not know about my order about the gangway doors.
14228. Had you understood between you and the Captain, that this was one way of filling the lifeboats in the event of the lifeboats being required? - I had not discussed the matter with the Captain.
14229. How was it that it occurred to you and to the Captain at the same time? - I do not know that it occurred at the same time.
14230. But it did occur to both of you? - It came to both our minds and naturally anyone familiar with the ship, any seaman, any one attached to the ship, would know at once that was the best means of putting the people into the boat - by the gangway doors.
14231. Is that a better means of putting people into a lifeboat - a safer means I mean - than having the boat filled on the boat deck 70 feet above the water and then lowered down? - Do you mean filled to her utmost capacity?
14232. Yes. - Yes, it is far better to get the boat water borne.
14233. If a boat is filled to its utmost capacity on the boat deck there is a possibility of two dangers, either the falls may prove insufficient or the boat may buckle and break. I think that is the effect of your evidence? - That is right.
14234. Is it a practicable way of filling a lifeboat in any kind of sea and weather conditions to lower her into the water practically empty and then fill her from those gangway doors? - Oh yes.
14235. You do not see any greater difficulty in filling her from those gangways doors in rough weather than in lowering her from the boat deck? - In rough weather I am afraid that boating altogether is a pretty big problem, more than we could discuss here. There are so many things before that to be taken into consideration.
14236. I know, but it is just because of your vast experience - you hold a master’s certificate and an extra master’s certificate, and I recognise your knowledge and experience - that I want you to give us the benefit of your experience. In rough weather would it be safer to fill the boats from the lower part of the ship than from the boat deck? - You have put a very difficult question before me, you know, and it has nothing to do with this.
       The Commissioner: It would depend very much on the particular circumstances, Mr. Scanlan. For instance, the first question is the size of the vessel and that would make a very great difference.
       The Witness: It depends upon the size of the vessel and many thousand things.
       Mr. Scanlan: On that, my Lord, may I suggest that if a boat is lowered into the water then, supposing it is inconvenient to fill in your passengers from one side, you might take your boat round to the other side, having a sufficient crew.
       The Commissioner: All I mean is this: It occurs to me that to discuss a problematical case when we have not, and cannot have, the particular circumstances that apply to it is not of very much use.
       Mr. Scanlan: Yes, my Lord.
       The Commissioner: Unless you see a good reason for it I would very much rather listen to your examination upon the circumstances of this particular case. I think it would be of more use to the Court.
       Mr. Scanlan: Yes, my Lord; as I have been instructed on this point I think it only right that I should bring it under your Lordship’s notice.
       The Commissioner: If you think differently, I do not want to interfere with you, but I am telling you that, to my mind, it is not of much value to discuss a problematical case when we cannot have the circumstances that would affect it.
       The Witness: I would willingly give you an answer only I must say that it is a very big question you are opening up.
       Mr. Scanlan: If I may say so, my Lord, I submit this question is involved in the questions submitted to the Court by the Board of Trade.
       The Commissioner: I think very likely it is; I can tell you how it appears to me that it might be of importance. The question must arise at some time as to the value of lifeboats, and lifeboats are worked, or intended to be worked, in rough weather as well as in smooth weather, and we may have to consider it; but, at the same time, I do not think that examining this gentleman about the conduct of lifeboats under particular circumstances, which are problematical, would help us very much. You might ask him generally whether lifeboats are of value in a rough sea, and I should be obliged if you would ask him that question because I think it would be of use.
14237. (Mr. Scanlan - To the Witness.) Of course, on the night of this unfortunate disaster, you had ideal conditions for filling and manning and getting off the lifeboats? - Yes.

Page 324

14238. But take your mind to another possible set of circumstances, a rough sea and rough weather, you would still, I assume, make an attempt to utilise your lifeboats in the event of a disaster happening? - Yes.
14239. What complement of a crew would be necessary to man your lifeboats in rough weather? - There, you see, you compel me to put a question to you: You would have to define rough weather, and there is the Beaufort scale nought to twelve with breezes alone, so that we would have to come to some definite understanding as to what is meant by rough weather.
14240. I will give you anything you wish; there is no use your asking me a question, but assume that the weather was rough? - Do you mean the worst conditions for a lifeboat?
14241. Yes. - When it is possible to launch it from the davits?
14242. Yes. - Would it be better to load from the doors or from the davits?
14243. No, just what you would do with your lifeboats in the roughest weather.
       The Commissioner: The roughest weather? I doubt if you could do it.
       The Witness: We could not get them out at all then.
14244. (Mr. Scanlan.) Perhaps that is so, my Lord? - You mean the roughest weather that a lifeboat would live in?
14245. Yes. - In the roughest weather a lifeboat would live in, it is extremely doubtful whether you would get them away from the ship, because you must remember there is the motion of the ship and there again you bring up another question, the size of the ship; the motion of the ship would be totally different in a larger or a smaller ship. Then you bring up the question of the height. I am sorry but you are bound to take all these things into consideration.
14246. Quite so. Would you answer this question. In rough weather, as rough as a lifeboat could live in, how would you proceed in lowering and manning and filling your boat? - With passengers?
       Yes - say a ship like the “Titanic.”
14247. (The Commissioner.) This question raises another difficulty in my mind. You say “In the roughest weather in which a lifeboat could live.” (To the Witness.) Now can a lifeboat be launched in such weather? - No, my Lord.
       The Commissioner: When she once gets to the water it may be very rough indeed and yet she will be able to live, but she might not be able to be launched. Launching and living are very different things.
14248. (Mr. Scanlan.) Perhaps, my Lord, we will be able to get down to a state of comparative roughness, when it is not only possible for a lifeboat to live, but also to be launched. I think I have made myself plain at last.
       The Witness: Yes.
14249. Thank you. What would you do under these circumstances?
       The Commissioner: That is quite intelligible.
       The Witness: Do you wish me to take the ship into consideration?
14250. (The Commissioner.) The question as I follow it is this - assuming such weather bad but still such weather that you can launch a boat and such weather that the boat when launched will live, where would you load her? - The “Titanic,” or any ship?
14251. (Mr. Scanlan.) Any ship - take the “Titanic” for example? - Again I am sorry, but I must ask do you mean men and women or men alone?
14252. Men and women? - Of course it would be better to get the women in from the decks undoubtedly if you could. The men, of course, are handier to jump; you might be able to launch the boat alongside the gangway doors, but it would need pretty smart seamanship to hold her there in this rough weather you speak of. It is quite possible, and is frequently done, not under these circumstances, but, for instance, the pilot leaving; you know how very frequent it is for the pilot to leave and board in rough weather. He is a seaman, and watches his chance and jumps. There is a right time to jump. There are seamen there who know the right time to jump. They must be there to see that the passengers jump at that moment. Is that what you wish me to say?
14253. You have gone a little in that direction, but you say that you would get in the women passengers on the boat deck and you would get the male passengers in from the gangways on the lower deck? - I must say yes; I cannot tie myself of course.
       The Commissioner: Now, Mr. Scanlan, I want to know whether he would get them from the gangway to the boat by means of a ladder or by means of jumping?
14254. (Mr. Scanlan - To the Witness.) Tell my Lord how you would get them into the boat from the gangway doors? - Depending on the height, if the boat rose with the sea, if the sea was so rough bringing the gunwale of the boat fairly close to the level of the gangway doors let them jump; keep a clear space in the stern sheets and let them jump into the stern sheets with a couple of men there to catch and steady them as they come into the boat. If the sea is not high enough then I would use a rope-ladder and let them come down the rope-ladder. You could have a couple of ladders hanging over the side and tell the men when to jump. Have a rope round them, and let the seamen be hanging on to them so that they cannot let go until you think it desirable for them to jump into the boat. You would have to be guided absolutely by circumstances.
14255. Under such circumstances what complement of a crew would you desire to have in any of these lifeboats? - To handle her alongside the ship; is that what you mean?
14256. To handle her alongside the ship and at sea afterwards if necessary? - There is very little handling to be done in a rough sea; you would ride with a sea anchor.
14257. The question I ask is, how many of a crew would you desire to have? - Say four.
14258. There would be four able seamen? - Four men generally useful in a boat, with a fair knowledge of boating.
14259. You think four would be sufficient? - I would handle any of these lifeboats with four men.
14260. Would you require four experienced men? - Not necessarily experienced men - men who have a fair knowledge of boats, who know one end of the oar from another, and know which end of the sail goes up.
14261. You would not expect to get such men from amongst the stokers, would you? - Why not?
14262. Would you? - Yes.
14263. You would not require to have these four men ordinary seamen, deckhands? - No, not at all.
14264. But they would require to be skilled in the management of lifeboats or boats? - Not necessarily skilled; they want to be skilled in doing what they are told, and be able to do it.
14265. But in a sudden emergency you would not have time to tell them what to do, just as you had not time to tell the crews you sent from the “Titanic”? - But you are speaking of riding out at sea now, working a boat in a sea way.
14266. I am speaking of doing anything a boat’s crew would have to do, from the launching of the boat from the boat deck until they get to safety, if they ever get there. I do not wish to detain your Lordship with this.
       The Commissioner: You have indicated your point.
14267. (Mr. Scanlan - To the Witness.) It has been suggested in evidence which has been given in this case to my Lord that a crew of nine is desirable and necessary? - Then that would mean five less passengers, would it not?
14268. It would, of course, and, on the other hand, Mr. Lightoller, it would mean more boats. Do you agree with that? - The necessity of nine men to a boat?
14269. Yes? - Emphatically no.
14270. I understand your point of view. When you were leaving the bridge after your second watch, I understand it to be your evidence to my Lord yesterday that you explained to Mr. Murdoch what conclusion you had arrived at as to the proximity of ice; is that so? - I have not quite got that yet. Do you mean that I told Mr. Murdoch?

Page 325

14271. When your watch finished at 10 o’clock on the night of the disaster, is it the case that you stated to Mr. Murdoch the conclusion you had arrived at as to the proximity of ice? - Yes.
14272. You were examined with regard to this in America; do you remember that? - No, I do not remember what I said there.
14273. I am reading from what purports to be the official note of the evidence in America, my Lord. It is the first day, and the first time you were in the witness-box, and it is on page 68 of the copy I have. You were asked, “Do you know where you were at the hour you turned over the watch to Mr. Murdoch? (Mr. Lightoller.) Not now, Sir. (Senator Smith.) Did you know at the time? (Mr. Lightoller.) Yes, Sir. (Senator Smith.) Can you give us any idea? (Mr. Lightoller.) When I ended the watch I roughly judged we should be getting towards the vicinity of the ice, as reported by that Marconigram I saw somewhere about 11 o’clock.” Do you follow this? - Yes.
14274. “(Senator Smith.) That you would be in that latitude? (Mr. Lightoller.)Longitude. (Senator Smith.) At 11 o’clock? (Mr. Lightoller.) Somewhere about eleven, yes. (Senator Smith.) Did you talk with Mr. Murdoch about that phase of it when you left the watch? (Mr. Lightoller.) About what? (Senator Smith.) I said, did you talk with Mr. Murdoch about the iceberg’s situation when you left the watch? (Mr. Lightoller.) No, Sir. (Senator Smith.) Did he ask you anything about it? (Mr. Lightoller.) No, Sir. (Senator Smith.) What was said between you? (Mr. Lightoller.) We remarked on the weather, about its being calm, clear. We remarked the distance we could see. We seemed to be able to see a long distance. Everything was clear. We could see the stars setting down on the horizon.” From this it appears that when you gave your evidence you were under the impression that you had not told Mr. Murdoch about the icebergs and the conclusion you arrived at as to approaching them? - I may say by the questions that were put to me that those answers you might agree were correct as far as I understood the questions at that time.
14275. Is it your explanation then that this is incorrect or incomplete? - Incomplete, I say, yes.
14276. And that notwithstanding this evidence, you did tell Mr. Murdoch about the icebergs? - Undoubtedly, yes.
14277. You will admit, I suppose, that this is misleading, and, I suppose, you would like to correct it? - Yes, I should.
       The Solicitor-General: I think if you look a little earlier, Mr. Scanlan, you will find that this gentleman was asked, “Did you communicate to Mr. Murdoch this information that the Captain had given you on the bridge?” And he speaks of having communicated to him about the ice then, I think. “So that the officer in charge, Mr. Murdoch, was fully advised by you that you were in proximity to these icebergs,” and he says: “I would not call it proximity,” but I think the answers show that he did say that then. I know you want to be fair.
14278. (Mr. Scanlan.) I do, and I hope you will understand that, Mr. Lightoller?
       The Witness: Quite right.
14279. Apart from your telling Mr. Murdoch, was there any record which he could look up for himself in order to be assured that you were getting on towards the ice-field? - The custom, as I think I explained previously, is that we have a notice board in the chart room for the purpose of putting up anything referring to navigation, wireless reports on matters navigational, and it is open for anyone to look at.
14280. Are you quite clear that there was not a haze on this night? - Yes.
14281. Are you aware that while you were on watch from 6 to 10, George Symons, a witness who was examined yesterday was one of the men stationed in the crow’s-nest? - Yes.
14282. In answer to Mr. Laing, when he was asked, “While you were on the look-out up to 10 o’clock what sort of a night was it?” He replies, “Pretty clear, Sir, a fine night, rather hazy, if anything a little hazy on the horizon, but nothing to speak of.” Do you agree with that? - No.
14283. You did not observe any haze. Is it possible that the man in the crow’s-nest would have a better opportunity than you had of observing whether or not there was a haze? - No.
14284. You say you would have as good an opportunity where you were stationed on the bridge? - Better.
14285. I suppose you know that we have it from other evidence as well, from the look-out man, Lee (this is on page 72, my Lord), that it was hazy that night. He is asked, “What sort of a night was it?” and his answer was: “A clear starry night overhead, but at the time of the accident there was a haze right ahead.” Then he is asked, I think by the Attorney-General: “Did you notice this haze which you say had extended on the horizon when you first came on the look-out, or did it come later on? - (A.) It was not so distinct then, not to be noticed.” Can you explain if these men are truthfully giving their evidence how it is that they could have observed a haze while you on the bridge would not have observed it? - No, I could not.
14286. If an iceberg loomed up ahead of you, would the person on the bridge have as good an opportunity of observing it as the man in the crow’s-nest? - Quite.
14287. Does it strike you in any way as a singular circumstance that when the iceberg did appear and was sighted, the observation of it was by the man in the crow’s-nest, and not by the men on the bridge? - Have we any conclusive evidence to that effect?
       The Commissioner: The evidence is that attention was drawn to it by the three bells. As far as I know, the first indication of it was the ringing of the three bells from the crow’s-nest when the man in the crow’s-nest sighted it.
14288. (Mr. Scanlan.) Yes, my Lord, and all the evidence we have had up to the present goes to establish that view of the matter. (To the Witness.) Now, you did state yesterday that you yourself had used binoculars for the purpose of detecting ice. Do you not think it would have been -
       The Commissioner: I do not think he said that. What he did say, to my recollection, was that he would much prefer his eyesight for the purpose of detecting an iceberg.
       The Witness: That is right, my Lord.
       The Commissioner: But that having seen the iceberg with his eyes, he then would probably take the binoculars for the purpose of examining it more particularly.
       Mr. Scanlan: Yes.
14289. (The Commissioner - To the Witness.) Were you using your glasses up to 10 o’clock, when you were on the bridge? - I had them in my hand. Will I explain to your Lordship?
14290. Were you raising them to your eyes from time to time? - Occasionally.
14291. (Mr. Scanlan.) I think this is the utility of binoculars - you see something with the naked eye, and then applying the glasses you determine what it is? - Exactly.
14292. Do you not think that before the look-out man stationed in the crow’s-next ventured to report an iceberg he would require to satisfy himself what he saw was really an iceberg?
       The Commissioner: Forgive me, he did not report an iceberg; what he reported by the three bells was something ahead.
       Mr. Scanlan: I think your Lordship will find in the evidence -
       The Commissioner: Do three bells mean iceberg?
       Mr. Scanlan: No, my Lord, but at the same time he went to the telephone, and he stated at the moment on the telephone: “Iceberg ahead, Sir.”
       The Commissioner: That is true, but the three bells indicated nothing more than that there was something ahead.
14293. (Mr. Scanlan.) Something right ahead, my Lord, and then the telephone message conveyed it. (To the Witness.) If one of those men on the look-out had seen something and applied the glasses is it not possible that he might have been able to identify it as an iceberg sooner than with the naked eye? - He might be able to identify it, but we do not wish him to identify it. All we want him to do is to strike the bells.

Page 326

14294. 14294. I will put this to you: Supposing a man on the look-out fancies he sees something and strikes the bell, and it turns out not to be anything, I should think he would be reprimanded? - He is in every case commended.
14295. 14295. (The Commissioner.) I do not understand that. Is he commended when he signals that there is something ahead when there is nothing ahead? - Yes, your Lordship.
14296. 14296. (Mr. Scanlan.) If he did it frequently in a journey would not the commendation take the form at the end of the voyage of paying him off and dispensing with his services? - Not at all. The man is not an absolute fool; he knows that if he is trying to keep a good look-out, particularly amongst ice, and he suspects he sees anything, he will strike the bell; if it turns out to be nothing he may come on the bridge and say, “I am sorry that I struck the bell when there was nothing;” but he is invariably told, “Never you mind; if you suspect that you see anything strike the bell, no matter how often.”
14297. 14297. Let me read this to you from the evidence of the look-out man Fleet, when he was examined in America. He is asked by Senator Smith: “Suppose you had had glasses such as you had on the ‘Oceanic’, or such as you had between Belfast and Southampton, could you have seen the black object a greater distance? - (Mr. Fleet.) We could have seen it a bit sooner. (Senator Smith.) How much sooner? - (Mr. Fleet.) Well, enough to get out of the way.” Do you agree with that?
       The Commissioner: I see it is referred to there as a black object.
       Mr. Scanlan: Yes, my Lord; that is the language of Senator Smith in the question.
       The Commissioner: But I should think - I do not know - that Senator Smith had heard the word “black” previously.
       Mr. Scanlan: Yes, my Lord; I am taking this as detached and putting it as being in the witness’ evidence.
       The Solicitor-General: Lee called it “a dark mass.”
14298. 14298. (Mr. Scanlan - To the Witness.) From the evidence you gave to the Court yesterday at what distance ahead do you think you yourself in the peculiar conditions which prevailed on this Sunday night could have picked out an iceberg? - About a mile and a half to two miles.
14299. 14299. Do you mean by the naked eye? - Yes.
14300. 14300. And with glasses could you discern it at a greater distance? - Most probably.
14301. 14301. (The Commissioner.) I do not follow the answer? - I meant to convey (it is rather a difficult question to answer) that we do not have the glasses to our eyes all the time, and naturally I should see it with my eyes first. If I happened to be looking directly ahead at the moment an iceberg came in view and I had the glasses to my eyes at that particular moment it is possible I should see it, whereas I should not have seen it quite as soon with my eyes.
14302. 14302. Apparently binoculars are placed in a bag or a box in the crow’s-nest at times. At the time of the accident it is said there were no binoculars on the “Titanic” in the crow’s-nest; is that true? - That there were none?
14303. 14303. No, is it true that there is a place for them in the crow’s-next? - I believe so.
14304. 14304. Then, presumably, it is intended that they should be there? - Yes.
14305. 14305. We are told you know they were not there this night? - Yes.
14306. 14306. And they are there to be used, I suppose? - Yes.
14307. 14307. When they are being used in the crow’s-nest are they used in the sense of being always held up by the look-out man to his eyes, or are they merely had recourse to as occasion seems to suggest? - That is it, your Lordship.
14308. 14308. The man on the look-out is not always standing with the binoculars up to his eyes? - No, certainly not.
14309. 14309. They are there for use when he thinks it desirable to use them? - Precisely. You see, if I may point out, binoculars, with regard to lights, are extremely useful; that is to say, there is no doubt you will distinguish a light quicker. If you set a man to look out for a certain light, and he reports a light it is quite a matter for us to ring him up on the telephone and ask, “What character is that light?” The man may, on a clear night, see the reflection of the light before it comes above the horizon. It may be the loom of the light and you see it sometimes sixty miles away. He may just make sure of it with the glasses, because there is any amount of time - hours; there is no hurry about them on a clear night at all. You make absolutely certain then about the light, and so as to be in that position we ring him up to say exactly what it is; but when it comes to derelict wrecks or icebergs, the man must not hesitate a moment, and on the first suspicion, before he has time to put his hand to the glasses or anything, one, two, or three bells must be immediately struck, and then he can go ahead with his glasses and do what he likes, but he must report first on suspicion.
       The Commissioner: I took you off your line.
       Mr. Scanlan: Yes, my Lord.
       The Commissioner: You were asking him about the mile and a-half to two miles, and I want you to follow it.
14310. 14310. (Mr. Scanlan - To the Witness.) What you said was that you could see an iceberg with the naked eye for from a mile and a-half to two miles, and I put it to you that with the glasses you could probably see it at a greater distance, and you agreed? - I agree.
14311. 14311. Of course the same thing would apply to the look-out man as to you? - Yes.
14312. 14312. At the rate of speed at which the “Titanic” was travelling, how long would it take you to cover the distance of a mile and a half? - It works out at about five minutes - something about that.
14313. 14313. So that it is a matter of great consequence, do you agree, to have binoculars for look-out men? - Do you want me to pass an opinion as to whether look-out glasses ought to have been in that crow’s-nest? Is that it?
14314. 14314. (The Commissioner.) I do not think so; I will put it in the same form to you. He wants to know whether the look-out man ought to have the binoculars glued to his eyes? - Oh, no, your Lordship, certainly not.
       The Commissioner: I do not know how you are to get those binoculars used advantageously unless they are fixed on to the man’s eyes.
       Mr. Scanlan: I sincerely hope I did not put a question which raised that view as to my meaning, my Lord.
       The Commissioner: Let us understand, Mr. Scanlan. This witness, as I understand, says this: “Binoculars are put into the crow’s-nest to be used, but not to be all the time at the eyes of the man who is on the look-out,” and that is what I call being glued to his eyes.
       Mr. Scanlan: Yes, my Lord.
       The Commissioner: And the binoculars are only had recourse to when by the naked eye something has already been discerned; that is what I understand.
       Mr. Scanlan: Yes, my Lord, but which cannot be described or which the man cannot understand.
       The Commissioner: He wants to know more particularly what it is.
14315. 14315. (Mr. Scanlan - To the Witness.) For the purpose which my Lord has been explaining to you is it not very desirable to have glasses provided for look-out men so that they can use them when necessary? - It is a matter of opinion for the officer on watch. Some officers may prefer the man to have glasses and another may not; it is not the general opinion.
14316. 14316. I am not talking about the opinion of officers in general, but the particular opinion which you entertain as to the usefulness of glasses? - Yes - now I can answer you decidedly - certainly I uphold glasses.

Page 327

14317. For look-out men? I am glad you do. Do you know now that a complaint was made at Southampton by the look-out man that glasses were not provided in the crow’s-nest? - I know of no complaint.
14318. Do you know there were not glasses in the crow’s-nest? - I do.
14319. You say there was no complaint made. You mean -
       The Commissioner: No, he does not; he says he knows of no complaint.
       The Witness: I meant to convey that impression, that there was no complaint - there was no right to make a complaint.
14320. Do you mean to tell me that if the look-out man goes into the crow’s-nest and finds that here are no binoculars in the pocket or box or whatever it is, he has no right to come and say so? - Yes, he has the right to come and report, and there the matter ends.
       The Commissioner: I call that complaining.
14321. (Mr. Scanlan - To the Witness.) So far as you know it was not reported that there were not glasses? - It was reported.
       The Commissioner: It is only a question of words.
       Mr. Scanlan: That is so.
       The Commissioner: He does not think a report is a complaint.
       Mr. Scanlan: I meant it in the sense of a report taken.
       The Witness: There was a report; I am sorry I misunderstood you.
14322. Can you explain to my Lord why, when such a report was made, glasses were not provided for the look-out man on the “Titanic”? - No, I cannot offer you any explanation.
14323. If it had been a matter in your discretion, would you have provided glasses then? - Had they been on the ship I might have done.
14324. Were there glasses on the ship available for the use of the look-out man? - That I cannot say.
14325. Had you glasses on the bridge? - We had.
14326. How many pairs? - A pair for each senior officer.
14327. How many pairs altogether; you have five or six officers? - A pair for each senior officer and the Commander, and one pair for the bridge, commonly termed pilot glasses.
14328. So that there would be from time to time during the whole course of the voyage a pair of glasses available? - On the bridge.
14329. On the bridge that could have been handed up or given to the look-out man.
       The Commissioner: Mr. Scanlan, I want you to know what is passing in my mind. It appears to me that whether those glasses were there or not made very little, if any, difference, because the man would not have them to his eyes, and when he did sight this thing it was too late to use glasses.
       Mr. Scanlan: My instructions are, my Lord, up to the present that the utility of glasses consists in this: you sight something, and do not know what it is; then you apply the glasses, and you are able to say whether it is an iceberg or a derelict.
       The Commissioner: That is quite right.
       Mr. Scanlan: That seems to be a most important thing, my Lord.
       The Commissioner: What I am pointing out to you is this: Here the thing was sighted at a time when lifting up glasses and looking to see what it was would have been of no use whatever; they were right on it.
       Mr. Scanlan: Except this; we do not know but that before the man discerned this object as an iceberg he may have seen some object, a speck, or a mast, or something.
       The Commissioner: That is not my view of the evidence; I think the look-out man rang out three bells the moment he saw something ahead.
       Mr. Scanlan: We are in this position yet, that we have not had here the identical man who rang the bells and who shouted, “An iceberg ahead, sir.” So that it must be a surmise. I think I have indicated my point.
       The Commissioner: You are quite right.
       The Witness: I should like to point out that when I speak favourably of glasses it is in the case of a man on whom I can rely, but if I have a man in a case like this which Mr. Scanlan speaks of, a derelict or an iceberg, who is to put the glasses to his eyes before he reports, I most utterly condemn glasses. The man must report first and do what he likes afterwards.
       The Commissioner: I believe Mr. Scanlan that is right, it would be quite improper for a man who sees something ahead with his eyes, to wait until he has used glasses before he reports.
       Mr. Scanlan: Surely, my Lord, that would depend on the distance at which the object was seen; if it were seen 10 miles ahead with the ship going as slowly as some of those ships go.
       The Commissioner: We need not contemplate a case of that kind, it was not this case. Here the iceberg was right close to the ship.
       Mr. Scanlan: I shall be prepared at a later stage in the case to offer your Lordship evidence on this point, and it is in that view that I have pressed the matter so far.
       The Commissioner: Quite right.
14330. (Mr. Scanlan - To the Witness.) This night you have described as being a particularly bad night for seeing icebergs. Is not that so? - I do not think I mentioned that word “bad,” did I?
14331. You did not mention that word, but I wish you not to misunderstand me. I am not purporting to give your exact words. You said it was realised at the time that it would be more difficult on account of there being no wind, and the sea being a level calm? - Yes, that is right.
14332. Added to that you had the condition of there being no moon? - Yes.
14333. And the other conditions which you described to my Lord. Were not these circumstances which would indicate to any experienced officer that it was necessary to take extra precautions for safety? - As a matter of fact we were unaware of the sea being flat. All the precautions were taken which we thought necessary.
14334. Do you say you were not aware then that the sea was flat? - No.
14335. At all events, it was more difficult then than under normal circumstances to see an iceberg. You observed that yourself from six to ten? - Yes.
14336. Although there were abnormal difficulties you took no extra precautions whatever. - Have I said so?
14337. I suggest to you that you took no extra precautions whatever? - But I did.
14338. Tell me what? - I took the precaution, as I think I mentioned in my evidence, of taking up a position on the bridge in which everything ahead was clearly in view and maintaining that position for the remainder of the watch.
14339. That is so far as you were concerned for the remainder of your watch? - Yes.
14340. And you think you would have seen an iceberg before the man in the crow’s-nest? - I do not know whether I should have seen it before them or not; I should have seen it in sufficient time to clear it quite sufficient.
14341. Can you give any explanation of the man who succeeded you not seeing it in sufficient time to clear it? - I am afraid I cannot.
14342. If the weather conditions were as clear as you said they were while you were there? - I am afraid I cannot give you any explanation.
14343. In addition to those conditions which you describe as abnormal you had a certainty that you were rushing into icebergs - into an ice-field? - Oh, no.
       The Commissioner: That is your picturesque way of putting it.
14344. (Mr. Scanlan.) I will put it in less picturesque language, my Lord. (To the Witness.) When you got the first warning that there were icebergs ahead your course was set in a particular direction; that is to say, the course of the ship? - At noon, yes.
14345. Did you follow practically that course all through that day? - Oh, no.
14346. Did the course which you followed lead you into the region from which the presence of ice was reported to you? - The course set at noon?

Page 328

14347. 14347. Yes? - No.
14348. 14348. Did the course you were following up to the time you left your watch at 10 o’clock lead necessarily to a place where you expected ice? - Where there was a possibility of seeing ice.
14349. 14349. Not only a possibility of seeing it, but a possibility and almost a certainty of running into it? - Oh, no.
14350. 14350. (The Commissioner.) I do not think he could say that. (To the Witness.) Before you left the bridge did you know you were making for a locality in which ice was to be expected? - Quite so.
14351. 14351. (Mr. Scanlan.) Because you so stated to Mr. Murdoch when you were leaving the watch according to your evidence here yesterday? - Yes. Let me explain my point and we will get it far clearer. You see we were making for a vicinity where ice had been reported as you say year after year, and time and again, and I do not think for the last two or three years I have seen an iceberg although ships ahead of us have reported ice time and time again. There was no absolute certainty that we were running into an ice-field or running amongst icebergs or anything else, and it might have been as it has been in years before ice reported inside a certain longitude.
14352. 14352. (The Commissioner.) I can understand that; it does not follow that because ice is reported you are going to have a collision with an iceberg? - That is what I wish to convey.
14353. 14353. You need not trouble about that at all as far as I am concerned. The point which I understand is being put to you at present is this, that you knew you were steering into what I may call an ice-field, a district in which there were icebergs and growlers and field ice. That is what you want to put, Mr. Scanlan?
14354. 14354. (Mr. Scanlan.) Yes, it is, my Lord. (To the Witness.) You knew you were heading there when you left the watch? - Yes.
14355. 14355. Do you not think, then, it would have been desirable, especially as you say the conditions were abnormal, to have slackened speed? - It has never been done in my experience.
14356. 14356. We have heard it from the officer -
14357. 14357. (The Commissioner.) You do not answer the question? - I answer from experience, no.
14358. 14358. (Mr. Scanlan.) We had evidence a few days ago from an officer on another company’s steamers that they have a regulation about taking extra precautions when they get into an ice-field, or when ice is reported ahead of them. Does your company, the White Star, issue any regulations to their Captains and Sailing Officers as to what they ought to do when they come into an ice region? - No.
       The Commissioner: I should like to know this, Mr. Scanlan, if you can tell me. Do the German boats issue any such regulations?
       Mr. Scanlan: My knowledge does not extend to that, I regret, my Lord.
       The Commissioner: I doubt whether you will find any such regulations issued to regular liners. There was one witness who was here from the “Mount Temple,” the Canadian Pacific line, a steamer which belongs, I suppose to the railway company.
       Mr. Scanlan: Yes, but a big carrying passenger steamer.
       The Commissioner: Are there such instructions issued to any regular British lines or German lines crossing the Atlantic?
       Mr. Scanlan: I do not know as to any German line, my Lord, but I have been informed that it is a customary thing to give instructions for British lines.

(After a short adjournment.)

14359. (Mr. Scanlan.) Can you tell us at what speed the “Titanic” was going when you left the bridge at 10 o’clock? - About 21 1/2 knots.
14360. What was the indication from which you make that calculation? - I judge from what I remember of the revolutions. I think, as far as I remember, the revolutions were 75, and I think that will give an average of about 21 ½.
14361. The speed was taken down, I understand, in the log? - Yes, that would be kept in the scrap log.
14362. I do not suggest that you wanted to make a record passage on this occasion, but had not you all in mind the desirability of making a very good first trip, from the speed point of view? - No, I am afraid not, because we know that in the White Star, particularly the first voyages - in fact you may say pretty well for the first 12 months - the ship never attains her full speed.
14363. Were not you on this occasion taking as much speed as you could get out of the “Titanic”? - Oh, no, not at all; I am under the impression she was under a very reduced speed compared with what she was capable of doing.
14364. What maximum speed do you think you could have attained? - Well, just as a matter of hearsay, or rather, what we estimated roughly, for instance myself, I judged that the ship would eventually do about 24 knots.
14365. Did you say yesterday that you were going at as high a speed as you could in view of the coal you had on board? - Did I say so yesterday?
14366. Yes? - I was not on the stand yesterday.
       The Solicitor-General: Yes, you were.
14367. (Mr. Scanlan.) You were being examined yesterday? - Oh, yes; I beg your pardon. Not only with regard to shortage of coal, but I understand several boilers were off.
14368. Do you know any reason for those boilers being off? - Merely that there was no wish for the ship to travel at any great speed.
14369. There was no reason, I take it, why you should not go fast; but, in view of the abnormal conditions and of the fact that you were nearing ice at ten o’clock, was there not a very obvious reason for going slower? - Well, I can only quote you my experience throughout the last 24 years, that I have been crossing the Atlantic most of the time, that I have never seen the speed reduced.
14370. You were asked by my Lord this forenoon how an unfortunate accident like this could have been prevented in what you describe as abnormal circumstances? - Yes.
14371. Is it not quite clear that the most obvious way to avoid it is by slackening speed? - Not necessarily the most obvious.
14372. Well, is it one way? - It is one way. Naturally, if you stop the ship you will not collide with anything.
14373. There was no reason why you might not slacken speed on this voyage, you were not running to any scheduled time? - No.
14374. If you happened to be on the bridge in command yourself could you take it on your own responsibility to slacken speed, or would you require to communicate with the Captain? - Communicate with the Captain.
14375. And the speed, therefore, could only be diminished by the Captain’s orders? - No, I would not go so far to say that the speed could only be diminished by that. Let me give you an instance. Suppose I had seen the smallest scrap of ice, supposing we had passed a little bit of the field ice that was knocking about on the other side of this pack ice, had I seen any indication of the vicinity; proof positive of the vicinity of ice, I should very probably have telegraphed myself at the same time that I sent word to the Commander.
14376. At the same time, as a matter of propriety and etiquette between officers and master; the proper thing, I take it, is to go to the master and make your suggestion to him and then let him decide? - Well, I want you to fully understand me. In the ordinary course of events, hazy weather, weather coming in hazy - I am not speaking particularly of ice now - or nearing land, or anything for which you think it is desirable to slacken speed, or will be shortly desirable to slacken speed, you would communicate that to the Commander; but our instructions from the White Star do away with the necessity of notifying the Commander in any immediate danger; we immediately act, as I believe Mr. Murdoch did.

Page 329

14377. Just tell me what your instructions are from the White Star? - Well, I cannot quote you them word for word. They are in the Regulation Book, which I have no doubt you will be able to get.
14378. Is there anything mentioned in those instructions about what you should do when you are in a region in which ice has been reported? - There is nothing that refers particularly to ice.
14379. Are you quite sure of that? - I think I may say I am sure of that.
14380. Nothing at all in the regulations? - But there is a regulation that covers ice and everything else.
14381. I take you to the regulation that covers ice. What is prescribed for you to do then? - You do not quite understand me. There is no regulation that particularly alludes to ice; but in all instances everything must be sacrificed to the safety of the ship, and no thought of making a passage - that is to say a fast passage - must be at any time entertained.
14382. Is there no specification of certain dangers with instructions to the commanding officer as to what he is to do then - I mean, like haze, fog, and ice? - Oh yes; there are fog regulations.
14383. Under what head do the ice regulations come?
       The Commissioner: There are none, I understand.
       Mr. Scanlan: What I gathered from him, my Lord, was that the ice regulations would be found in a certain category of regulations for certain circumstances of danger.
14384. (The Commissioner.) Are there any such regulations? - Not referring to ice, my Lord.
14385. (Mr. Scanlan.) None at all. Now, in your evidence in America, you narrate a conversation which took place between yourself and the Captain when he was on the bridge with you. Senator Smith asks you, “Was anything else said?” and you say “Yes; we spoke about the weather, the calmness of the sea, the clearness - about the time we should be getting up towards the vicinity of the ice, and how we should recognise it if we should see it, freshening up our minds as to the indications that ice gives of its proximity. We just conferred together generally for 25 minutes”? - That is right.
14386. The principal thing you had been talking about was ice? - Naturally.
14387. Did you decide, then, when you first saw ice you would stop or slacken speed? - No.
14388. Do you mean to say that the policy of the Captain and you was to go right ahead at 21 1/2 knots? - No, I do not mean to infer that.
14389. Unless there was a haze? - No, not necessarily unless there was a haze. Had we come across ice, as I just said, in any degree, whether the Commander had been on the bridge or not I should have acted on my own initiative.
14390. You freshened your minds up as to the indications? - Quite so.
14391. You had a purpose in doing that. Would it not have been desirable then to have communicated the points of knowledge that you had evolved to the look-out men? - Oh! no.
14392. You did not think it was necessary to communicate with them? - No.
14393. Although from a look-out point of view they were of greater consequence than the men on the bridge? - Pardon me, not at all.
14394. Well, they ultimately discovered the ice you know, and the men on the bridge did not? - You say the men on the bridge did not. I may say I discussed that immediately on the “Carpathia” with the look-out men - not necessarily discussed it, but asked them questions whilst their minds were perfectly fresh, and the look-out man told me that practically at the same moment he struck the bell he noticed that the ship’s head commenced to swing showing that the helm had been altered probably a few moments before he struck the bell, because the ship’s head could not have commenced to swing at practically the same time he struck the bell unless the ice had been seen at the same moment or a few moments before he saw it.
14395. I take it then that your position is to justify the conduct of the Captain and those who were navigating the “Titanic” from 11 o’clock till the collision? - Yes.
14396. In going ahead at 21 1/2 knots, although you all knew that you were in the presence of ice? - Well, you hardly state it correctly when you say we knew we were in the presence of ice. We did not, we only had reports to go on.
14397. You had no reason to disbelieve those reports? - On the contrary we had, having so many years gone across and never seen ice though it is repeatedly reported.
14398. I suggest to you it would have been a much safer thing to have believed the reports which you had from a number of sources as to the presence of ice, than to have acted in disregard of the warnings you had received from other ships, and gone ahead at the rate of 2l 1/2 knots an hour until the collision occurred? - In the view of after events, of course, we form a totally different opinion. It would naturally have been safer, we can see now, not to have gone ahead at all.
14399. And that is what, at all events, in the light of your present knowledge, good seamanship would have dictated? - Not necessarily good seamanship.
14400. Extra good seamanship? - No, not seamanship at all.
14401. In the light of the experience you have had, it is what you would do now? - In the view of our reports we have had in other voyages, if I say in the light of good seamanship or extra good seamanship, we should have stopped, the thousands of ships that have crossed the Atlantic would likewise have stopped, and then you come to the end of your tether.
14402. I do not say they would have stopped? - Well, or slowed down.
14403. The warning you had had at half-past one led you to understand that you would be right up against the ice, so to speak, from 10 to 11? - The position where it had been reported.
14404. I could understand your going ahead at 21 1/2 knots up to 10 or half-past 10: What I fail to understand is why from half-past 10, when you knew you were about the place where you were led to believe ice was to be found, you still proceeded at 21 ½ knots? - That I cannot answer for after 10 o’clock.
14405. After half-past 10? - Between half-past 9 and 10.
14406. You can answer for going ahead then? - As far as I understand the same speed was maintained.
14407. You said something a moment ago, “As you know now” or “in view of what has happened.” May I take it with the knowledge that you have now, and in view of this accident, what you would do now would be to slacken speed, or stop? - In view of what has occurred naturally we shall take every precaution that suggests itself to our minds in the future to avoid a repetition of such an accident.
14408. Would not one of the precautions be what Captain Smith said to you on the bridge between nine and ten, “we should have to go very slowly”? - He was speaking about haze.
14409. I know he was speaking about haze, but is not that what you should have done in adopting precautions? - No, I do not see it. It would have cleared the accident, I quite agree with you, had we been going very slowly, but we have to take in view the experience of years, what we have always done.
14410. You are not quite following me. I am sure you intend to? - I do; I wish to help you all I can.
14411. I do know that. But you said that since the accident with the knowledge that you now have, you would have adopted extra precautions, I mean, at all events, from half-past nine onwards. Would not one of those precautions be going very slowly - diminishing speed? - I am afraid I cannot give you any definite answer to that.
14412. Am I to understand, even with the knowledge you have had through coming through this “Titanic” disaster, at the present moment, if you were placed in the same circumstances, you would still bang on at 21 ½ knots an hour? - I do not say I should bang on at all; I do not approve of the term banging on.

Page 330

14413. I mean drive ahead? - That looks like carelessness you know; it looks as if we would recklessly bang on and slap her into it regardless of anything. Undoubtedly we should not do that.
14414. What I want to suggest to you is that it was recklessness, utter recklessness, in view of the conditions which you have described as abnormal, and in view of the knowledge you had from various sources that ice was in your immediate vicinity, to proceed at 21 ½ knots? - Then all I can say is that recklessness applies to practically every commander and every ship crossing the Atlantic Ocean.
14415. I am not disputing that with you, but can you describe it yourself as other than recklessness? - Yes.
14416. Is it careful navigation in your view? - It is ordinary navigation, which embodies careful navigation.
14417. Is this your position, then: that even with the experience of the “Titanic” disaster, if you were coming within the near vicinity of a place which was reported to you to be abounding in ice, you would proceed with a ship like the “Titanic” at 21 ½ knots? - I do not say I should.
14418. At nighttime, and at a time when the conditions were what you have described as very abnormal, surely you would not go on at 21 ½ knots? - The conditions were not apparent to us in the first place; the conditions of an absolutely flat sea were not apparent to us till afterwards. Naturally I should take precautions against such an occurrence.
14419. And what precautions would you take if you would not slow up or slow down? - I did not say I would not slow up.
14420. Cannot you say whether you would or not? - No, I am afraid I could not say right here what I should do. I should take every precaution whatever appealed to me.
14421. I suggest to you if you acted carefully and prudently you would slow up, and that if you did not slow up you would be acting recklessly. You know you have described the conditions of abnormality as having been apparent at the time while you were on your watch. You have told my Lord that at great length; and in your conversations with the Captain did not you discuss that? You have said that you did not recognise that the sea was flat. I want to recall this to your mind. It is at page 306, my Lord, at question 13615, you give this evidence. “At 5 minutes to 9, when the Commander came on the bridge (I will give it to you as near as I remember) he remarked that it was cold, and, as far as I remember, I said, ‘Yes, it is very cold, Sir. In fact,’ I said, ‘it is only one degree above freezing. I have sent word down to the Carpenter and rung up the engine room and told them that it is freezing, or will be during the night.’ We then commenced to speak about the weather. He said, ‘There is not much wind.’ I said, ‘No, it is a flat calm, as a matter of fact.’ He repeated it; he said, ‘A flat calm.’ I said, ‘Yes, quite flat, there is no wind.’ I said something about it was rather a pity the breeze had not kept up whilst we were going through the ice region. Of course, my reason was obvious; he knew I meant the water ripples breaking on the base of the berg”? - Yes.
14422. Was not all that amply sufficient to let you and the Captain know that you were in circumstances of extreme danger? - No.
14423. I do not think anything would convince you that it was dangerous that night? - I have been very much convinced that it was dangerous.
14424. I mean that the conditions you have described were dangerous? - They proved to be.
14425. What I want to suggest is that the conditions having been so dangerous, those in charge of the vessel were negligent in proceeding at that rate of speed? - No.
14426. I will pass from that point. Amongst the precautions which it would be proper to adopt, would it not be desirable to station more look-outs, more look-out men in the bows or the stem head? - Anything which would be conducive to avoiding danger.
14427. Would that be conducive to avoiding danger? - It might be.
14428. I am speaking to you as a man of great practical experience? - I could not exactly say whether look-outs in the stem head would be. We do not place very much reliance on them; we hope they will keep a very good look-out, but those men in the first place are not regular look-out men, and you have not the same control over them as you have over the look-out men. They have nothing to sacrifice in the way of a good berth, which the look-out man’s is.
14429. I think the difference between a regular look-out man and an irregular look-out man - that is, an ordinary A.B. - is 5s a month? - Five shillings a month in pay and a difference in watches and a difference in work on board the ship.
14430. But there is no passing of an examination to go from one grade to the other? - Yes.
14431. (The Solicitor-General.) Is there? - Yes. I should explain to you, it is customary when a ship is in running for all look-out men to have an eye test as well as the Quartermaster’s. That does not apply necessarily to A.B.’s.
14432. (Mr. Scanlan.) I was going to ask you about the eye test. Is there an eye test of each look-out man in the White Star Line? - Well, as far as possible we maintain the condition of having look-out men who have passed the eye test.
14433. I want to understand. We have had evidence on this point already. We have had the evidence of a man who told us that his sight was not tested, and this was his first voyage in a White Star vessel, the “Titanic”? - Yes.
14434. How do you explain that? - By her being a new ship, and the difficulty of obtaining a perfectly satisfactory crew at such short notice. You see, you have to have men with you some little time; on the other hand, I can tell you of look-out men who have been on the look-out of the White Star for some considerable time, and who have had eye tests.
14435. But surely if you wanted to get an eye test as to the men you engaged for the Titanic,” you could easily have got a doctor to test their eyesight at Southampton? - Well, it is not exactly a doctor who tests it. It is a Board of Trade examination - the customary examination. It applies to the officers as well.
14436. I should like to know that; do you say it is the practice of the Board of Trade to test the eyesight of the look-out men before the ship is cleared? - No, you do not quite understand me. If I am First Officer of a ship, a First Officer has the signing on of the crew. Very well, then, as far as possible and practicable, I see that these look-out men, at stated periods, have an eye test.
14437. Do they sign on in any special way? - They sign on as look-out men.
14438. Do not they sign on as A.B.’s? - No, I think they sign on as quartermasters and look-out men and A.B.’s.
14439. I understand - you will correct me if I am wrong - that look-out men sign on as A.B.’s? - I think I am right in saying they sign on as look-out men. They used to sign on as A.B.’s.
14440. Did the six look-out men on the “Titanic” sign on in any special way? - I believe they signed on as look-out men.
14441. But you do not know of your own knowledge? - No, I could not say for certain.
14442. Was the sight of a single one of those men tested before starting on that voyage? - As I said there were some of those men I knew to have had eye-tests, that is to say they were look-out men - Fleet and Symons who had been with me in the “Oceanic.”
14443. I will take Fleet. By whom was Fleet tested for his eyesight? - I could not tell you; it is the customary test by the Board of Trade. They go up there and obtain their certificate.
       The Solicitor-General: I have the articles here, Mr. Scanlan, and these six men are entered as engaged in the capacity of look-outs.

Page 331

14444. (Mr. Scanlan.) Quite, I thank you. (To the Witness.) You do not know when Fleet was tested? - I could not tell you the date now.
14445. The other man with him, Lee, you do not know whether he was tested at all? - No.
14446. You do not know who tested the sight of Fleet? - No, I do not know what man tested him, what official.
14447. You do not know whether it was a doctor? - No, it is not a doctor. I do not think you quite understand. Just let me explain. I see the man and I say, “What is the date of your eye certificate?” and he tells me. If it is time for him to have another certificate I tell him. “Now the first opportunity you have go up and get your eye certificate.” That means to say, that man goes up to the Board of Trade offices in Southampton, pays 1s., and applies for his eye test.
14448. To the Board of Trade? - To the Board of Trade, and he then goes into a room and he goes through a form of examination. If that is satisfactory he has his certificate to that effect.
14449. Did anyone examine the certificates of those men to see if they had been recently tested or not? - I could not say.
14450. Will you admit, in view of the importance of the duties which look-out men have to perform, that there should be a proper eye test? - Oh, yes. I think it is quite a reasonable precaution, and is maintained in the White Star, and I may say only the White Star.
14451. Had you in the White Star any system of drilling and training seamen for manning lifeboats? - Oh, yes.
14452. Did you train them on the “Titanic”? - No, except in Belfast. We put some boats in the water there. I think that was done by the builders though.
14453. So far as the officers were concerned there was no testing of the men in lifeboat practice? - Oh, yes, in Southampton as well we put boats in the water and the men were put in.
14454. How many? - Probably 8 and a quartermaster in each boat.
14455. How many boats? - Two boats.
14456. Do not you think it would be a proper thing to have all the boats lowered before the commencement of a voyage and to give the men who would ultimately be the crews of those boats some practice in the manning and navigation of them? - I am afraid that is hardly practicable. You can send a seaman to any boat; if he is a sailor he is perfectly at home in a boat or wherever he is sent. But you see with regard to firemen it seems hardly practicable to have all the firemen up on deck at that particular time, and the stewards.
14457. If the capacity of a fireman for handling a lifeboat is of any account it is necessary to give him some training, is it not? - Oh, yes.
14458. Can you suggest any other way for giving this training than giving it at the port before the commencement of a voyage, or at its conclusion? - Yes, either before the commencement or after the conclusion of a voyage.
14459. So you agree that would be a desirable thing to do apart from the question of convenience? - Anything that would tend to the safety of a ship would be desirable.
14460. You agree with that, I take it? - Well, I do not altogether agree with you as a matter of fact, because, as events proved, it was not necessary to have the firemen there.
14461. In order to ensure the efficiency of the crews for the manning of lifeboats, do you agree it would be desirable to give them practice in the manning of the boats? - If a man is to be made proficient in the working of a lifeboat naturally he must have practice.
14462. I suggest the suitable time is in port either before the commencement or at the termination of the trip? - That can be done in any boat; not necessarily in the ship’s boats. You could have a system of training of firemen. They might be trained on shore to be accustomed to boats. The lowering of a boat, of course, is a different matter.
14463. And similarly for stewards? - Yes.
14464. Do you think it would be desirable to give certificates for proficiency? - I am afraid that is hardly for me to answer. It is rather a big question.
14465. I quite realise that. Now, as to the provisioning of lifeboats we have heard a good deal of that, and I want to ask you is it the usual practice to put into lifeboats at the commencement of the voyage the equipment prescribed by the Board of Trade? - The Board of Trade takes particular care that you have got the equipment.
14466. Are those articles of equipment put into the boat before the commencement of the voyage? - I may say they are there all the time.
14467. They are in the boat all the time? - Yes, that is it, they are kept in the boats.
14468. In the lifeboats? - Yes.
14469. That is, a compass is kept in the lifeboats? - No, I do not think the equipment calls for a compass being actually in the boats.
14470. A lantern; is that part of the equipment? - That is part of the equipment.
14471. Is that put in the boats? - I do not think it is necessary for that to be kept in the boats.
14472. Tell me, what is your experience. Is it usual for these things to be put into each boat before the commencement of a voyage. I am not talking about what happened on the “Titanic”? - No, it is not.
14473. It is not the usual thing? - No. I am speaking of the lamp and the compass.
14474. Even taking the present Board of Trade regulations - whether they are sufficient or not, I am not going to make any suggestions to you - I take it that you must have an efficient compass and a lantern trimmed in four of the boats on a ship like the “Titanic”? - I think it is four.
14475. With regard to those four is it not the case that the compass and the lamp as well as the other accessories are put in and kept in the boats from the beginning of the voyage? - Not the compasses; I do not think it applies to the compasses. The compass is rather a delicate thing, and also the lamp. It will not keep indefinitely, it is better to keep it in a dry place so that when you do want it there is no trouble about lighting it.
14476. Do you of your own knowledge know where the compasses for the lifeboats on the “Titanic” were kept during this voyage? - Of my own knowledge I know there was a locker fitted up for them; I think it was on the afterend of the boat deck; somewhere handy any way, a shelf put in where all the compasses would be right handy to the boats.
14477. Do you know whether there was any compass in any boat? - No, I do not believe there was a compass in any boat.
14478. Do you know whether there was a compass put into the boats after the collision and before the boats were lowered? - No, I do not think there was.
14479. How do you explain that so few of the boats, as they were lowered, had lanterns? - I do not think I have conveyed the idea that so few had lamp. It will not keep indefinitely, it is better to -
14480. Had any of the boats that you assisted in lowering? I take it you assisted in lowering four - 4, 6, 8 and the collapsible - had any of those lanterns? - Well, I did not look for lanterns, and I cannot say; you can get that evidence as to the lamps, I may tell you, from Hemming, the lamp trimmer, who took the lamps and lighted them and went round and distributed them to the boats.
14481. In the meantime, I am trying to get it from you? - I am afraid I cannot give you the information.
14482. At all events, none of them had a compass? - Not to my knowledge.
14483. With regard to the glasses, you stated that a report was made at Southampton that glasses for the crow’s-nest were wanting. Can you tell my Lord to whom that report was made? - To me.
14484. What record was kept of it? - None. The Commissioner: What are you speaking of now, Mr. Scanlan?

Page 332

14485. (Mr. Scanlan.) Of the report from the crow’s-nest that there were no glasses in the crow’s-nest. (To the Witness.) You said the report was made to you - by whom? - Will you just let me explain the circumstances, and you will have it clearly then? I was in my room, and I heard a voice in the quarters speaking. I recognised it as Symons, the look-out man, so I stepped out of my door, saw him, and said, “What is it, Symons?” He said, “We have no look-out glasses in the crow’s-nest.” I said, “All right.” I went into the Chief’s room, and I repeated it to him. I said, “There are no look-out glasses for the crow’s-nest.” His actual reply I do not remember, but it was to the effect that he knew of it and had the matter in hand. He said that there were no glasses then for the look-out man, so I told Symons “There are no glasses for you.” With that he left.
14486. Do you think you had a sufficient number of competent seamen, including officers, for the launching of the lifeboats? - Yes, as it proved we had.
14487. Now, can you explain this? I take it that you were over two hours assisting in the clearing and launching of four lifeboats with a number of men to assist you. The boats you assisted in clearing and lowering were four, six, eight, and the collapsible?
       The Solicitor-General: It is not four lifeboats; it is three lifeboats and a collapsible.
14488. (Mr. Scanlan.) Yes, three lifeboats and a collapsible.
       The Witness: Yes.
14489. How many men were assisting you in lowering those? - I can hardly give you the number.
14490. Eight or ten? - I do not remember.
       The Commissioner: I do not see how these points are of great materiality. Nothing went wrong; no misfortune can be attributed, for instance, to the fact that there was not a compass on board; no misfortune can be attributed to the fact that there may not have been a lamp on board some of them. I daresay the things ought to have been there, but the fact that they were not there does not appear to have made any difference. I daresay there are many things that ought to have been in this ship that were not there, but I would rather you would confine yourself to the absence of things that were material.
       Mr. Scanlan: What has occurred to me if I may respectfully mention it to your Lordship at this stage is this, that the remit in this Inquiry to the Commissioner takes cognisance of the rules of the Board of Trade and the provision of lifeboats, and the efficiency and sufficiency of the crew, and the evidence I am trying to elicit from this witness is all directed to those points.
       The Commissioner: We have a great deal of evidence that there were no compasses in some of the boats; that there were no lamps. In some I think it is said there were no biscuits, and other things of that kind. I know all that, and it may be at the right time one will have to consider whether these are matters which ought to be more closely attended to than they are; but, in point of fact, in connection with this calamity they made no difference. All the people in the lifeboats got to the “Carpathia.”
       Mr. Scanlan: Yes. So far as the greater number of those points are concerned, it may be that no difference resulted between compliance and noncompliance; but there is this one thing I would like to indicate to your Lordship. Surely there was one boat which was not launched at all; that is one of the collapsible boats?
       The Commissioner: Yes, there was. I do not know whether these rules that I see here apply to the collapsible boats.
       Mr. Scanlan: They do, my Lord.
       The Commissioner: Do these rules as to water apply to the collapsible boats. I do not know where you would put a cask of water in a collapsible boat. Where would you put it?
       Mr. Scanlan: I have a drawing of the Englehardt collapsible boat.
       The Commissioner: And does it show a cask of water?
       Mr. Scanlan: Yes, my Lord. If your Lordship will look at Rule 5, page 15.
       The Commissioner: I have it, yes.
       Mr. Scanlan: Sub-section (d) of the General Rules says: “Equipments for collapsible or other boats and for life-rafts.”
       The Commissioner: “A vessel to be kept filled with fresh water shall be provided for each boat.” Does that mean it is to be wrapped up in the collapsible boat somewhere, or does it mean there is to be a vessel, as it is called, handy. I thought you had a picture of a collapsible; if so, I should like to see where the vessel was?
       Mr. Scanlan: I do not think it shows specially the place, my Lord; it shows those boats.
       The Commissioner: I do not think at present you need spend very much time on this.
       Mr. Scanlan: I agree, my Lord.
14491. (The Commissioner.) There are two or three matters about the boats I should like to ask a question on. (To the Witness.) I want to know whether you knew that those boats were not intended to be lowered full of people. Did you know that? - We have no instructions to that effect, my Lord, but I knew that it was not practicable to lower them full of people.
14492. Had you any reason to suppose that they were weaker than they should have been? - No. I have not had much experience with these Englehardt collapsible boats.
14493. I am not talking about collapsible boats merely, but the lifeboats? - I should not think they were capable of being lowered full of people. They may be. I have never seen them full of people, but if they are only supposed to carry 65 people afloat, it hardly seems feasible that they would carry 65 people when suspended at each end. It does not seem seamanlike to fill a boat chock full of people when it is only suspended at each end. It is to guard principally against accidents in lowering. That must be taken into consideration a very great deal - the fact that you have to lower a boat from a great height and get her safely into the water. It is of more importance to get the boat into the water than it is to actually fill her at the boat deck, because it is no use filling her if you are going to lose those people before you get her down; it is far better to save a few and safely.
14494. (Mr. Scanlan.) Do you think you could have filled the boat still more in the water? - Undoubtedly.
14495. If your organisation had been complete? - I do not see the organisation would have prevented the ship sinking.
14496. I know it would not? - It was that that prevented us putting the people in.
14497. A better organisation might have allowed you to instruct the men who were in the boats to come alongside so that you could fill up with passengers from the gangway if you could have done it.
       The Commissioner: What occurs to me about that Mr. Scanlan is this, that the order was, and I suppose quite a proper order, that women and children were to go first. Now it appears to me that you might have great difficulty indeed in putting the women and children down a rope ladder hanging from these gangway doors. That might be a very difficult thing to do.
       Mr. Scanlan: In the hope that some improvement might result from this Inquiry, I have been instructed to bring those suggestions up.
       The Commissioner: You are quite right; in fact, I am much indebted to you for what you are doing.
14498. (Mr. Scanlan.) Thank you, my Lord. (To the Witness.) I suggest to you that it was a long time, the two hours and ten minutes, I think that is the time you were engaged in lowing Nos. 4, 6 and 8, and the collapsible boat - it was a long time, I suggest to take for the lowering of that number of boats? - No, I do not think half an hour can be considered a very great length of time. Of course, you will understand that the times I have given you are very approximate. And if you take half an hour to uncover a boat and get the falls out and of absolute necessity get them coiled down clear, then get your strong backs out, then get your boat hove out, pass the mast and sails as I did out of some of the boats in order to get more people in, and then lowering these boats carefully down to the water, when you were conducting that operation practically on board the ship you would find that would occupy a good part of half an hour - put it at twenty minutes, say - to do it carefully.

Page 333

14499. I suggest to you that if you had had better equipment you might have got them down simultaneously - better equipment and more men? - As far as I understand, we had the best equipment of any vessel afloat. I do not know of any better equipment.
14500. Some question arises as to the number of your lifeboats. It took all of your officers and efficient seamen the whole time from the time that you recognised the vessel was in imminent danger until she sank to lower the number of boats you had, and even then you were left with one boat still on deck, which you had not been able to bring in use? - Yes.
14501. If you had had a sufficient number of lifeboats to have taken away every soul on board, I suggest you would need a much greater number of efficient and competent seamen and officers? - Well, if you are including among the seamen firemen - you must always remember you have the firemen to call on - you have a great number of crew to call on to put the boats out.
14502. What I suggest to you is that with all the crew you had, and all the men you had, all the seamen, and all the officers, it took you all this time to lower your 19 boats? - Yes.
14503. If you had instead of 20, 40, or 50 to lower, I suggest you would have needed a larger number of officers and efficient seamen? - We should have had to have had more men working at the boats.
       The Commissioner: I should think that is obvious? - Very obvious.
14504. If you have more boats to work you require more men to work them; but I should like you to tell us this if you can: How is the proper number of a crew for a vessel ascertained; is it according to the tonnage of the vessel, or how? - The seamen are you speaking of?
14505. The crew generally; the whole crew. - I am afraid I cannot give you the necessary information.
       The Commissioner: Can anyone answer me that. Do you know, Mr. Laing, if there is any rules by which it is ascertained how many of a crew a particular ship ought to take?
       Mr. Laing: My Lord, there is a manning scale issued by the Board of Trade, I understand. I have the rules here. It is published in a little book which has on the back of it, “Memorandum on Part II. of the Shipping Act” - “Manning Ships.” The scale says this: - “As regards steamships, the following scale has been prepared on the basis of the minimum cubic contents of boats and rafts which are required to be carried by such vessel under the provisions of the rules relating to life-saving appliances,” and then it gives the scale. “In the case of vessels,” etc. (reading to the words) “3,900 cubic feet of boat capacity.” Then it goes on and deals with engineers and firemen. It seems a little complicated. Perhaps I had better hand the book up, that your Lordship may look at it.
       Mr. Scanlan: May I direct your Lordship’s attention to the agreement?
       The Commissioner: Your suggestion is that a great many more seamen and firemen ought to have been employed?
       Mr. Scanlan: No, my Lord.
       The Commissioner: Is it not?
       Mr. Scanlan: Well, I do not know that I would say that for the number of lifeboats they had.
       The Commissioner: No, no; but in order to save the people on board this ship, there ought to have been a great many more lifeboats, which is possibly true, and there ought to have been a great many more men belonging to the Seamen and Firemen’s Union on board. That is what you are driving at?
       Mr. Scanlan: I hope I will not be thought unfaithful to my clients if I say I shall be satisfied with more members of the British Seafarers Union.
       Mr. Clement Edwards: That would not quite satisfy me, my Lord. That there should have been a sufficient to protect other interests would not quite satisfy me.
       Mr. Scanlan: I have made an abstract from those somewhat voluminous articles in which the ratings and engagements of the different members of the crew are set out, and I find that the deck department, which includes the able seamen, consists of 66, and this includes the Master and officers, surgeons, carpenters, and all kinds of seamen, as well as mess stewards. The number of the deck department is 66; the number of the stewards’ department, stewards and pursers, is 501, and the engine room department is 327. I think they carried quite a sufficient number of stewards, my Lord.
       The Commissioner: Well, somebody may think they do not.
       Mr. Scanlan: The men who would be useful, at all events, for launching and lowering boats, I take it, would be found primarily in the deck department, and would include, of course, the officers and the qualified seamen.
       The Commissioner: As far as I can ascertain there are no rules laid down by the Board of Trade by which you can determine how many of a crew a ship of a particular size is to carry.
       Mr. Scanlan: I think from those Articles the ship could have been cleared.
       The Commissioner: Sir John, can you tell me whether there is any rule published by the Board of Trade to the effect that a ship 500 feet long and 10,000 tons register or over must have a master, two mates, and ten efficient sailors? It appears to be an extraordinary rule, but it is suggested to me that there is such a rule.
       The Solicitor-General: I will have inquiries made about it at once.
       Mr. Scanlan: From the agreement and account of the crew which is signed by the Board of Trade, and made at the port of departure, I find there is incorporated in this agreement, and as a term of it, a regulation for preserving discipline issued by the Board of Trade. There is an account of the number of the crew that would be sufficient, and this is far less than the number that was actually carried. I can submit it to your Lordship.
       The Commissioner: That is what I meant. This steamer (whether it had enough or not is another question) was manned far away in excess of any requirements of the law.
       Mr. Scanlan: Yes, my Lord, of the Board of Trade; but, of course, my submission is the Board of Trade regulations and rules are themselves utterly deficient.
       The Commissioner: I quite understand that.
14506. (Mr. Scanlan - To the Witness.) There are just two other points I want to ask you. With regard to the route, what route were you pursuing in the “Titanic” on this voyage? - What is known as the outward southern route.
14507. Do you know that since the disaster to the “Titanic” this route has been voluntarily altered by agreement amongst shipowners, and that a more southerly course is being taken? - I believe so.
14508. (Mr. Scanlan.) I understand that is a fact, my Lord. (To the Witness.) One other obvious way for avoiding collisions with ice is to keep a more southerly course? - Yes.
14509. Were you with the ship during her trials? - I was.
14510. And the trials took place in Belfast Lough? - Exactly.
14511. And on the way to Southampton. Have you any way of changing the course of a ship than by the rudder, by the helm? - By the engines.
14512. Taking the ship going at full speed, or at a speed of 21 1/2 knots, in what distance could you turn her, if you put one propeller at full speed ahead and the other propeller at full speed or three-quarter speed astern? - No actual trials have been made to my knowledge with a ship travelling at that speed.
14513. Was any trial made as to what you could do with the ship by putting the two propellers in opposition to one another? - Yes, I believe so.
14514. Did you as an officer responsible from time to time for the navigation of this great ship know what could be done by reversing one propeller and sending the other ahead? - Do you mean the actual distance she would turn a circle in?

Page 334

14515. Yes? - With the helm hard over I think she could turn in about three times her length.
14516. Does that mean with the helm hard over and one propeller directed full speed ahead and the other propeller astern? - No, I think that is with the ship going ahead and both engines going ahead.
14517. Was it not important to find out how her course could be changed by reversing one propeller? - Quite so; it was done.
14518. It was done? - Yes.
14519. 14519. And, apart from the action of the helm, in what distance, by changing the propeller and putting one astern, could her course be changed?
       The Commissioner: Course be changed?
       Mr. Scanlan: I mean could she be changed in a circle.
       The Commissioner: You mean turned right round?
       
       Mr. Scanlan: Yes.
       The Commissioner: Do you mean turning half round or wholly round. Do you know which you mean.
14520. (Mr. Scanlan.) I do my Lord; I mean both. (To the Witness.) To turn her completely round on her axis so to speak, in her length, could she be turned on her axis by reversing one propeller? - You mean completing the circle?
14521. No, a half circle. - Sixteen points?
14522. Well, take it at 16 points.
       The Commissioner: I think I would drop this at present.
       The Witness: I do not quite understand.
       The Commissioner: Drop it at present. You will have somebody else who will be able to tell us far better.
14523. (Mr. Scanlan.) There is one other point. (To the Witness.) You have a master’s certificate and an extra master’s certificate? - Yes.
14524. Do you know whether or not a Captain of a first class ship like the “Titanic” has a great many duties to perform of a social nature apart from his duties on the bridge; I mean looking after the passengers? - Oh, no. Of course the purser is responsible to him, as everyone in the ship is responsible to him.
14525. Has not the Captain as a matter of fact to be a great deal away from the bridge? - Oh, dear no, not at all. He does not need to be away from the bridge at all.
14526. In practice is not the Captain a good deal away? - No. Do not misunderstand me. Say it is hazy weather or anything like that, he would never be away from the bridge. You might go from New York to Southampton and the Captain never away down amongst the passengers as far as that goes.

Examined by Mr. ROCHE.

14527. You were the only watch-keeping officer who was saved? - Yes.
14528. So I want you to answer me a few questions about the equipment and system on the bridge before we come to what happened. Supposing you are in charge of the ship, and a collision happens, and it strikes another vessel or an iceberg, is it in your province to close the watertight bulkheads? - Yes.
14529. Without sending for the master? - Yes.
14530. By doing what, moving a lever? - Moving a lever over.
14531. And without any communication with the engine room; they have to do nothing to assist you? - You communicate by the bell push, just an alarm bell, previously, and then put the handle over.
14532. The alarm tells them it is going to be done? - Exactly.
14533. But it does not require that they should do anything to assist your operations? - Nothing whatever.
14534. Therefore in all probability these watertight doors were closed immediately the accident happened? - Yes. I may say I saw the watertight doors myself tested in Belfast; they were all in perfect working order.
14535. And the warning is or ought to be given to the engine room that it is being done? - Yes.
14536. That is in order that they may not be in the way of the doors as they descend? - Exactly.
14537. We have had some evidence or suggestion that the watertight doors were opened again. I do not know whether you know that was done or not? - No.
14538. But tell me, if you will, how that could be done. It was suggested it could be done from the engine room. Do you know is that so? - Yes.
14539. With or without communication with the bridge? - Let me explain that. You put the lever over to “on.”
14540. Who does, the officer on the bridge? - You put the lever over to “on” on the bridge. That forms a contact alongside the watertight doors and releases a friction clutch which allows the door to descend. As long as the lever is over to “on” I understand the doors cannot be lifted; but if you put the lever to “off” the doors have then to be raised by hand and can be raised by hand.
14541. What we get, therefore, is this, that when the bridge has put the lever to “on” the engineers cannot in any way alter or reverse that order without communication with the bridge? - Without us actually altering the handle.
14542. Which of course does require that somebody should be communicated with and should sanction it by doing something, namely, moving a lever? - Quite so.
14543. Can you tell us whether you have heard about one other matter which seems involved in some considerable obscurity. We have been told a length of piping was fetched from right aft in the tunnel and was carried further forward, where we do not know. Do you know or have you heard anything about the purpose of that? - Nothing, except what I have read in the evidence. I cannot explain it. I could not say how they got it through or why.
       The Commissioner: What was the significance of this piping.
14544. (Mr. Roche.) The point is to know what was going to be done with it in the first place, and secondly it was suggested that its being moved involved the opening of some of these watertight doors. Therefore one wanted to know what the conditions were that made it desirable to bring this pipe into use and where it was taken to in order to see what watertight doors were open. But you cannot help us at all about that? - I am afraid not.
       The Solicitor-General: There was a suggestion made to us - I do not know whether it was made to your Lordship - when you went over the “Olympic”; when we went over we were shown the piping my friend refers to and it was lying in one of the after compartments.
       The Commissioner: What is it for?
       The Solicitor-General: We were informed that it might be used as a supplementary piping to attach to the pumps further forward, and there were pointed out to us the pumps in the different pump rooms, in the different compartments, with a flange to which this piping might have been attached to form an extra suction pipe. That was the suggestion made to us when we went over the ship.
       Mr. Roche: I am much obliged for my friend’s explanation. If we can get from some witness where it was taken to, it would help; but you cannot help us?
       The Witness: No.
       The Commissioner: Assuming that the watertight doors were closed automatically from the bridge, as soon as the collision took place, there is at present no reason to suppose, except possibly the evidence about this pipe, that they were ever opened again.
       Mr. Roche: I forget who it was, but the witness who says the pipe was fetched said that, in fact, the doors were opened. That was his view and recollection.

Page 335

Sir Robert Finlay: Only in the forward part. The doors it was suggested were opened were only those forward. Mr. Roche: I thought it was exactly the contrary - the pipe was fetched from the after-tunnel. The Solicitor-General: That is right. Mr. Roche: And the witness - I think his name was Scott - suggested that those were the doors that were opened to allow this piping to be carried. He could not carry the matter any further; he did not know where it went to forward, or what, if any, other doors were opened for the purpose of its being so carried. It is fairly obvious that if you got a heavy length of pipe in this way, if it can be avoided, it will not be carried up ladders and over a sort of series of high obstacles running up to E deck. The Commissioner: If they were opened they must have been opened by some operation on the bridge. Mr. Roche: That is what I wanted to get; the engineers of their own motion could not open these doors. My friend, Mr. Raeburn, refers me to page 131, Question 5600. The Solicitor-General: That is right. Mr. Roche: The witness was Scott, as I thought; he was in the turbine department, and he says this in answer to your Lordship. Your Lordship asks: “Then all the watertight doors aft of the main engine room were opened? (The Attorney-General.) Yes. (To the Witness.) And, as far as you know, as I understand it, they never were closed? - (A.) No. Why they opened them was they had to go down the last tunnel but one - ” The Commissioner: This is referring to watertight doors that are worked from the bridge. Mr. Roche: Yes, my Lord. They are all, without exception, worked from the bridge. The Witness: All tank top doors are worked from the bridge.

14545. That is to say, not the doors above E deck? - No.
       1. But the doors which extend from the floor of the ship up to E deck? - Exactly.
          The Commissioner: That is to say those that are in the bulkheads.
          Mr. Roche: Yes, they are really bulkheads.
          The Witness: Yes, bulkhead doors.
14546. (The Commissioner.) They are all worked from the bridge? - Yes, my Lord.
14547. The others have to be worked by hand? - By hand on the deck they are on, or from the deck above.
       Mr. Roche: And this witness says at Q. 5584 that the engineer of the watch in the engine room gave them orders: “(Q.) 5585. What did he tell you to do? - (A.) He told us to heave all the watertight doors up. (Q.) Did you go right aft again to the aftermost tunnel? - (A.) Yes, we went right through. We opened one up in the afterside of the turbine room, and then went right through them till we got to the after one, which we had opened up about two feet.” Then he described that he got to the aftermost tunnel, and he described the reason at Question 5600: “So far as you know, as I understand it, they never were closed? - (A.) No. Why they opened them was they had to go down the last tunnel but one and get a big suction pipe out, which they used for drawing the water up out of the bilges. (Q.) That tunnel is the one before you get to the last watertight door, where they went to get a big suction pipe? - (A.) Yes, it takes four men to carry it. I think I saw four men coming through with it. They took it to the stokehold. What they did with it I do not know.” So he sees it as far forward as the stokehold. Perhaps he means No. 1 boiler room, and he did not see further.
       The Solicitor-General: Mr. Roche, one has to combine with that the evidence of Dillon, which is on page 99, who says he was instructed to go forward of the boiler room, and he opened four doors, and in answer to Question 3800, “What did you open them for?” he says, “To allow the engineers to get forward to their duties, the valves and the pumps.”
       The Commissioner: It looks like the same thing.
       The Solicitor-General: One is forward and the other is aft; one is to get the thing and the other is to carry it forward.
       Mr. Roche: It looks as if at some time - I do not know that these witnesses are very definite about the time they were all opened again. He answers you, my Lord at Question 3793. “They were not closed again? - (A.) No, my Lord.”
       The Commissioner: If this evidence is to be taken as accurate, there was a time after the watertight doors in the bulkheads were closed, when they were opened again.
       Mr. Roche: That is how I read it.
       The Commissioner: From that time forward it would appear that they were never closed.
       Sir Robert Finlay: Only some of them. If your Lordship will look at page 99, Question 3789, 3790 and 3791, it is in answer to your Lordship. Your Lordship says, “Then you opened three watertight doors in the watertight bulkheads. The Attorney-General: Four, that is the evidence; from the engine room first.
       The Commissioner: Oh, from the engine room first. Then you opened four, did you? - (A.) Yes, my Lord.”
       The Commissioner: I remember this, Sir Robert. That meant that what perhaps might have been considered necessary doors for keeping out the water which had come in through the hole that had been made in the side, were left closed.
       Sir Robert Finlay: They were left closed.
       The Solicitor-General: That is right.
       The Commissioner: I suppose it was thought at that time that the hole in the ship did not let in any water aft of the point where this last door was left undisturbed.
       Sir Robert Finlay: Yes, my Lord, to enable the engineers to get on and do their pumping.
       The Commissioner: There was something said, and I have heard nothing more about it since that I remember, about some of these doors closing some other way automatically.
       Sir Robert Finlay: They can close on the bridge automatically those lower doors?
       The Commissioner: I mean some other apparatus altogether.
       Sir Robert Finlay: Oh, yes, where water rises and gets in there is a float which automatically closes the door. It was worked, I think?
       The Solicitor-General: Yes, I saw it worked.
       Mr. Clement Edwards: I was asking a question, and I was stopped by the learned Solicitor-General, who said he was calling evidence, and thereupon Mr. Laing got up and explained to your Lordship what from his point of view was the method by which this automatic float operated.
       The Commissioner: Certainly, I remember it. Up to this time I cannot say I have understood what this operation is.
14548. (Mr. Roche - To the Witness.) I do not know whether you could help us with regard to that. Supposing you do not want your float to close the doors, you want to keep them open for any purpose. Can you put it out of operation? - I do not think so.
14549. That is all you can tell us about that matter. Now I want to ask you the sequence of events when you came on deck. You come out first from your quarters, when you feel the shock of the collision? - Yes.
14550. And you see steam escaping? - Yes.
14551. That means, of course, that the engines have been stopped? - Yes.
14552. That the engines are not taking the steam and therefore they are blowing off. Were they ever put ahead again? - That I could not say.
14553. You could not feel it? - No.
14554. They never moved to your knowledge? - That I could not say; I could not say whether they were moved or not.
14555. Then you go back to your berth and are there for about half an hour? - Somewhere about that.
14556. Were the pumps running when you came out again? - That I could not say.
14557. Could not you feel or see that? - Oh, no, I should not feel the pumps from the deck.

Page 336

14558. Or know whether there was water going over the side? - No, we know from the evidence that water was going over the side.
14559. You were working on the hurricane deck not very far from the bridge. Did you hear the order given to bring up the women and children? - No.
14560. You only know that was in operation - that that was being done? - Yes.
14561. We have been told that later there was an order that at that time everybody should look out for themselves? - I heard nothing about it.
14562. You heard nothing about it at all? - Nothing whatever.
14563. Did you hear any general order for the people who were below to come up from below? - No. Any order of that description would have to be passed to the head of the department and would not concern me.
14564. I quite know it did not come though you, but I did not know whether you had gleaned or gathered from the people coming up that such an order had been given? - No, I knew of the order; it came to my knowledge afterwards that an order had gone for the passengers to put on lifebelts.
14565. Did you ever know at all whether any order had gone that the engineers should come up on deck? - No.
14566. You knew nothing of that? - No, I knew nothing.
14567. On the several boats which you were attending to - 4, 6, and 8, and the collapsible - did you see any of the engine room officers on the deck at all? - No, I did not see any of the engineers at any time.
14568. So far as you know they were down below to the end? - Yes.
14569. If you communicate with the engine room on this large ship you communicate by telephone? - Yes.
14570. From the bridge? - Yes.
14571. And that is the means that would be adopted and available for any orders? - Yes.
14572. With regard to the manning of the boats there was a very valuable suggestion that my friend Mr. Scanlan made and I understand you to approve of, and I want to know your view of it. The suggestion as to the firemen - there are a very large number of firemen of course on board these ships - that in case of calamity it is desirable both that the firemen should be saved and that they should be useful in manning the boats? - Yes.
14573. I understand your suggestion to be, that since boat practice before one of these voyages begins or during the course of it, is difficult if not impossible, there should be some preliminary training? - It would be advisable.
14574. And if that were done with the sanction of the Board of Trade, if not by law, of course it would tend to become universal? - No doubt.
14575. Just in the same way that the fact that the Board of Trade test for sight and colour makes that the practice? - Exactly.
14576. There are two look-out men in the crow’s-nest? - At all times.
14577. And they are on duty for how long? - Two hours on and four off.
14578. Are they looking out during these two hours alternately, relieving one another or are they looking out concurrently? - One stands on one side of the crow’s-nest and the other on the other, and they are supposed to be keeping a sharp look-out all the time.
14579. You are an experienced officer. Does not that tend rather to two things, dividing the responsibility, and, where a very sharp look-out is needed, as in the case of ice, to a very great strain on the men’s eyes? - Two hours?
14580. Two hours. - I do not think that is much strain, two hours.
14581. Not looking intently at the horizon for two hours? - No.
14582. Do not you find it on the bridge? - No.
14583. Do not you think for those men to look out alternately would be better than concurrently? - No, it would be worse.
14584. That is your opinion? - Yes.
14585. As to the speed which you are speaking of, 21 ½ knots, you use as an argument or illustration why she was not being pressed, that there were boilers not in use? - I am given to understand so.
14586. On these large vessels there are always reserve boilers which are not in fact put in commission - I mean which are not always going all at once, to allow for a margin for repairs, and so forth?
14587. I think that is more for an engineer to answer; but what we call the donkey boilers which are used in port, I believe, are the only ones that are out of use ordinarily.
14588. I did not mean they were out of use during the whole voyage, but in practice at any one time you never do in fact have all the boilers going? - I think they are all going.
14589. I have to ask this question because unfortunately not one of the engineers has survived? - I shall be glad to answer what I can.

Examined by Mr. HARBINSON.

14590. Would you consider it would tend to a more efficient look-out if at times when you are in the vicinity of ice a junior officer were put in the crow’s-nest together with the two look-out men? - No.
14591. You would not consider that was necessary? - No.
14592. I understood you to say yesterday that you had calculated you would be in the vicinity of ice about half-past nine? - About that, yes.
14593. And that the Sixth Officer, Mr. Moody, had made a calculation that you might reach ice somewhere about 11 o’clock? - Yes.
14594. That was rather a considerable discrepancy? - Yes.
14595. When you were leaving the bridge at 10 o’clock did you mention to Mr. Murdoch who succeeded you that your calculation was different from the calculation made by Moody? - I do not think I mentioned any individual calculations.
14596. You would not have considered it desirable, considering the conditions were such as you have told us, that you should have drawn Mr. Murdoch’s attention to this disparity in calculation? - No.
14597. Did you attach much importance to it yourself? - None.
14598. But you thought you would be in the neighbourhood of ice at half-past nine? - I knew we should not be there before half-past nine.
14599. You reported to Mr. Murdoch what took place while you had been on the bridge. You gave him a general report? - A general report.
14600. And did you discuss with him in detail the question of the vicinity of ice? - Nothing more than I have already given in my evidence with regard to ice.
14601. You have told us that the falls in the boats you were connected with, the lifeboats, worked satisfactory? - Quite.
14602. Is it customary on the boats that you have been attached to to lower the collapsibles from the falls that let down the lifeboats? - I have never seen collapsibles lowered before.
14603. Did you on this night, this Sunday the 14th April, experience any difficulty or see if any difficulty were experienced in the lowering of the collapsibles by these falls after the lifeboats had been lowered? - After they had been lowered?
14604. Perhaps I should put it in this way. After the lifeboats had been lowered, when the falls are empty, is there any difficulty ever experienced in getting the falls up again? - The falls were already rounded up, as I said in my evidence, when I got there, so I had not experience of rounding them up myself.
14605. You do not know whether or not there is at times a difficulty in getting the falls rounded up as you say? - In all tackles there is more or less a difficulty in both overhauling them and rounding them up again unless there is any weight on them. It has to be carefully managed.

Page 337

14606. So that unless in the case of emergency the falls are very carefully managed, it would be impossible through their agency to lower these collapsible boats? - Oh, no, I would not say impossible at all. It proved very probable and capable, and we did lower the collapsible boats with them.
14607. Did you have any difficulty owing to the falls rounding up, in lowering the collapsible boats? - In rounding them up or lowering them?
14608. In rounding them up after the lifeboats had been lowered? - All the tackles need careful handling as I say in overhauling or rounding up.
14609. In order to avoid such a thing would you think it desirable that there should be second falls provided for the collapsibles? - It is not practicable.
14610. Did you see much of Mr. Ismay on the journey across? - No.
14611. Was he often on the boat deck? - No.
14612. Do you know on this Sunday afternoon whether or not the Captain had shown him the Marconigram with reference to the ice? - I do not know.
14613. Did you see Mr. Ismay much with the Captain? - No, I never saw him at all with the Captain.
14614. In fact, you saw little of Mr. Ismay from the time you left Southampton? - As far as my knowledge goes, Mr. Ismay was never within the vicinity of either the quarters or the bridge during the voyage.

Examined by Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS.

14615. You came over with the “Titanic” from Belfast? - Yes.
14616. Do you know anything about the survey by the Board of Trade? - In Belfast or Southampton?
14617. At any time? - Both.
14618. Was the “Titanic” surveyed by the Board of Trade representative in your presence in Belfast? - Part of the time in my presence.
14619. Who was the representative? - I forget his name.
14620. Was it the same representative of the Board of Trade in Belfast as you saw in Southampton? - Oh, no; a different representative in Southampton.
14621. I will come to Southampton in a moment. Did you accompany the Surveyor of the Board of Trade while he was making his survey in Belfast? - Part of the time.
14622. Was there a Surveyor on behalf of anybody else except the Board of Trade in your presence? - There were several gentlemen there; who they represented I really could not say.
14623. The “Titanic” was not classed at Lloyd’s or any other registration society? - That I could not answer.
14624. You do not know whether there was a Surveyor from any registration society surveying in Belfast? - No, I do not know.
14625. And you do not know the name of the Board of Trade representative? - No, I forget his name.
14626. (The Solicitor-General.) Mr. Carruthers, I think? - Yes, that is right.
14627. (Mr. Clement Edwards.) Did you accompany Mr. Carruthers throughout his survey? - No; as I say part of the time.
14628. Can you say what part of the survey he did in your presence? - Yes; he examined the lifeboats, swung them out, lowered them down, hauled them up, and examined the equipment.
14629. That is the lifeboat equipment? - The lifeboat equipment - and tested the big anchor forward, swung that out and back again. I think that is all the time I had with him. I was with him most of the time he was with the lifeboats really, of any consequence.
14630. You were not present with him when he surveyed the bulkheads or apparatus for operating the doors? - Yes, I was through all the watertight bulkheads with him too. Pardon me, when I say with Mr. Carruthers, it was really for my own satisfaction. Whether Mr. Carruthers was there at the time I really could not say. Probably he was.
14631. Well, unless you know? - Well, I am not quite certain.
14632. When he tested the equipment of the lifeboats, did he check the list of things required by the Board of Trade rules to be put in the lifeboats? - I could not say that for certain. Previously we had already taken a check of the full complement of the boats by the officers; the officers themselves had been through all the boats, and got a list.
14633. It has been given in evidence here that some of the things in the Board of Trade list were not to be found on the boats when the accident happened? - That is right.
14634. Can you suggest why that was? - Yes, the things which you are alluding to I believe are compasses and lamps. As far as I understand those are not required to be carried in the boats.
14635. (The Commissioner.) Can you tell us where on board a steamer the lamps for the lifeboats are usually kept? - In the lamp room I believe, my Lord.
14636. And they are carried on the “Olympic” in the lamp room? - I presume so; I really could not say, my Lord.
       The Commissioner: I believe they are, Mr. Edwards.
14637. (Mr. Clement Edwards.) Anyhow, at Belfast you say that the Board of Trade Surveyor went through these things, and do you say that he found all that was required by the rules? - His report would be made to the Chief Officer, so I cannot answer for that.
14638. In your presence did he point out that anything was missing? - Nothing.
14639. From Belfast you came to Southampton. On the journey did you hear anything about a fire in the bulkhead between Section 5 and 6? - I did not.
14640. Have you at any time heard anything about a fire? - In a coal bunker?
14641. Yes. - No.
14642. In the ordinary course of things would a matter of that sort be reported to you as an officer? - No, not if it was slight, or I may say unless it became serious.
14643. Would it be reported to the Captain? - Very probably.
14644. Whose particular duty would it be to see that any fire occurring there was put out? - The Engineer’s.
14645. When you came to Southampton you said there was another representative of the Board of Trade. Who was that representative? - Captain Clark.
14646. Did you accompany him in his survey? - Part of the time.
14647. For how long? - I really could not say. I was with him part of the time.
14648. Who was with him the other part of the time? Could you say? - Yes, the Chief Officer that was then, Mr. Murdoch.
14649. While you were with the representative of the Board of Trade, Captain Clark, what part of the survey was done? - I really cannot remember what we went through with Captain Clark, unless it were the boats. Of course, on sailing day - well, that has nothing to do with the survey.
14650. What day did you arrive at Southampton - Saturday or Sunday, do you remember? - Sunday.
14651. And which day did the survey take place? - I cannot remember.
14652. Cannot you remember any part of the survey which was done by Captain Clark in your presence? - No, I cannot remember any of the incidents of it.
14653. Did he make a detailed inspection of the boats? - That I could not say.

Page 338

14654. Do you remember your evidence before the American Senate? - No; some part of it I daresay I recollect.
14655. You remember you gave evidence there as to the survey that Captain Clark made in your presence? - Yes.
14656. You have had a hard day, and I can quite understand you are getting a little fatigued? - Oh, no, that is all right.
14657. On the day after you sailed did you make a test of the boats and the apparatus? - Yes.
14658. In the presence of Captain Clark? - Yes.
14659. It was intended as a formal inspection by the Board of Trade? - Yes.
14660. Now, do you remember the extent to which you carried out the test? - Yes, with regard to the boats.
14661. What did you do? - We lowered two boats, that is swung out, carried on with the crew, swung out the boats, lowering away, placing the crew in the boats, the crews with their lifebelts on, lowered the boats, released them, sent them out, brought them back to the ship, and hoisted them inboard again and secured them.
14662. How many? - Two.
14663. Now you have said that this was a perfectly clear night? - Yes.
14664. Is it a fact, well within your experience, that when ice has got down into a fairly warm latitude that there is a constant haze given off from the ice due to the disparity in the temperature of the ice and the surrounding atmosphere? - Not to my knowledge.
14665. And is it not the fact that that haze is very frequently removed when a wind springs up and you are then able to see the edge of the ice quite clearly as you have suggested in your evidence? - Never, to my knowledge, have I seen any haze hanging round a berg. I have come across icebergs in a thick fog, but never noticed any individual haze round any ice.
14666. Is not a fog constantly created by this contact of ice at a very low temperature with the atmosphere of a much higher temperature? - Oh, no; you get fog when there is no ice at all.
14667. I know that. Sometimes we get it with heat, but what I am putting to you is that this disparity between the temperature of an iceberg and the surrounding atmosphere is one of the causes which go to create fogs in the Atlantic? - Would you mind repeating that?
14668. (The Commissioner.) Do you think it is worth repeating it; I do not think he knows these matters. The suggestion is that many fogs in the Atlantic are manufactured or made by icebergs? - No, my Lord.
14669. (Mr. Clement Edwards.) Icebergs in contact with the warm atmosphere? - Never to my knowledge.
       The Commissioner: I do not think he knows anything about it.
14670. (Mr. Clement Edwards.) You did in your evidence yesterday attempt to explain one of the reasons for the creation of fog. At Question 13600 you said “Well, though it may seem strange, it is quite possible for it to go up if the ice happens to be floating in slightly warmer water, or if the wind were to come round from the southward. You will frequently be passing through a cold stream, and if the wind comes from the southward you will almost invariably look out for a fog owing to the warm wind striking the cold water”? - Quite right. I was explaining to his Lordship at that time that though the temperature was very low, it was no indication of ice, because you might be approaching ice and the fact of the wind coming round from the southward would give you a warmer temperature, not necessarily fog, and therefore you would have a warmer temperature and still be approaching ice.
14671. Now, if the look-out men, in fact, saw a haze, what do you suggest it may have been produced by? - If they saw a haze it might have been produced by a warm and cold current meeting.
14672. And that might have concealed the ice? - If a haze had arisen it might have concealed the ice.
14673. And that condition of things might have been sufficiently local for you not to have seen anything of it when you went off duty at 10, and not to have seen any trace of it at the time when you again came up on deck after the collision? - It is just possible.
14674. Had you at any time any information as to the extent to which water had come in the “Titanic”? - Yes.
14675. When? - When the Fourth Officer reported to me in my room, and also when I asked the Carpenter whether No. 6 stokehold were dry. On the first occasion the Fourth Officer informed me the water was up to F deck. He has explained since he meant G deck - and the Carpenter informed me that No. 6 stokehold was dry.
14676. Did you understand at the time that he meant F deck? - I understood him to mean F deck.
14677. And are the gangways in E deck, the next deck? - Yes.
14678. Were you at all in a state of panic when you gave instructions that the gangway doors were to be opened? - Not the slightest.
14679. Did you have any consultation at all with the Captain when you gave those instructions? - None whatever.
14680. At the time you gave those instructions to the Boatswain did you notice whether there was any list at all on the ship? - No, I did not notice.
14681. How soon after you gave those instructions did you notice there was a list to port? - I think I have explained that in my evidence, that it was at No. 6 boat, I think, where I first noticed the list.
14682. At which boat were you when you gave instructions to the Boatswain to open the gangway doors? - I think I have also explained that - at No. 6.
14683. Now you have explained that it took you some 20 minutes to half an hour to get No. 6 boat uncovered and lowered; at what stage of that process did you give instructions to the Boatswain? - I could not say.
14684. At what stage did you notice the list to port? - I could not say.
14685. Can you say whether you noticed a list to port before or after you had given instructions to the boatswain? - That I could not say with certainty either.
14686. Has it occurred to you that if the ship struck on the starboard side it was a very extraordinary thing that there should have been a list to port? - No.
14687. Why not? - Why not extraordinary?
14688. Yes? - Because she fills up both sides equally.
14689. Does she, if there is an aperture on one side, does not she usually list to the side from which the water is pouring in? - Not necessarily.
14690. I did not say necessarily? - No.
14691. You would expect there would be a list to that side in which the water comes in, would you not? - No.
14692. Why not? - Why should I?
14693. Well, I am asking you? - I am sorry I cannot explain.
14694. You must have some ground for taking a certain view. You say that you would not expect a list to that side at which the water came in.
       The Commissioner: No, he did not say that. He said, not necessarily. I understand him to mean that the fact that there was a hole on one side would not necessarily mean that there would be a list on that side. That is all I understand him.
       The Witness: That is right, my Lord.
       The Commissioner: And I am advised that that is right, Mr. Edwards.
14695. (Mr. Clement Edwards.) Has it occurred to you since that possibly the gangway doors were opened and were first opened on the port side and she took a lot of water through those doors? - No.

Page 339

Examined by Mr. LEWIS.

14696. I understand you to say that the eyesight test had been maintained by the White Star Company? - As far as practicable.
14697. Is that from general knowledge or your own experience? - Personal experience.
14698. Would it surprise you to know that as a matter of fact the eyesight test has been discontinued for some considerable time at Southampton? - I might on the other hand say would it be of any use to you to know that I insist on it.
14699. Then I want to get it. Have you any experience outside your own ship, for instance, as to the general practice in the White Star Company? - No, I am speaking from personal knowledge.
14700. You could not say whether it is maintained except by yourself? - I am speaking purely from personal knowledge.
14701. Do you know that one of the look-out men had never done that duty before and was only qualified as an A.B. last year? - Quite possibly.
14702. Whose duty is it to see that the equipment of the lifeboats is maintained? - The Board of Trade’s.
14703. Is that carried out effectively? - It is, very effectively.
14704. As effectively on the White Star Line as in some of the other companies? - Speaking from my own experience at Southampton, it is particularly well carried out.
14705. I take it you mean that it would be the duty of the Board of Trade to see they are equipped, but it is the duty of the company to do the actual work of equipping them? - Undoubtedly.
14706. Whose duty is it from the company’s point of view to see they are equipped? - It rests primarily with the officers concerned, secondly with the Chief Officer, and, thirdly, with the Marine Superintendent.
14707. Do you know whether it is the duty of the shore staff to see these lifeboats are equipped? - I do know it is the duty of two men, who are told off to do nothing else while the ship is in port but go round and examine the lifeboats thoroughly, equipment, bread, water and everything else.
14708. How do you account for the fact that your boats were not equipped thoroughly? - I do not account for it.
14709. I mean with water and bread and all those things that are necessary? - May I ask how it comes to your knowledge?
       The Commissioner: I have already said those are very small matters; there is not much importance to be connected with any one of them.
       Mr. Lewis: They are important from our standpoint, the question of the equipment of the boats.
       The Commissioner: That may be, I know already in some respects those boats were not fully equipped, but I know also they had nothing to do with this calamity.
       Mr. Lewis: But my point is with respect that if the company were lax in regard to one particular point, there is the possibility of their being lax in other directions.
       The Commissioner: You can make that as a point, but it is nothing to examine this witness about.
14710. (Mr. Lewis.) I want to know the general methods adopted by the company as far as this witness knows. (To the Witness.) With regard to particular lifeboats, I understood you to say in your evidence that it took about an hour and a half to two hours to prepare and lower the boats upon which you were engaged, is that so?
       The Commissioner: Yes, he has said it, and I know it, you know.
14711. (Mr. Lewis.) Do you consider that under the circumstances of the case, when the ship was sinking rapidly, that that was a reasonable time to take? - Yes.
14712. What is the object of a boat list and boat drill? - It is rather obvious; it is to teach the men to know their stations.
14713. In the event of danger is not the object to be prepared to lower the boats simultaneously? - Not necessarily.
14714. If, for instance, the accident was even worse, if it is possible to conceive, and you had knowledge that the ship was to sink in an hour, obviously it would be desirable to get the boats down speedily, would it not? - Yes.
14715. Is not the object of having boat stations in order that you may station men at the different boats to lower them at once if necessary? - No.
14716. What is the object of having firemen and stewards on the boat list? - To know their stations.
14717. Is it not a fact that you ran a risk by proceeding from boat to boat to lower those boats of having several boats left? - They were not left.
14718. Is it not the fact that you did have boats left, collapsible boats or rafts that you could not get off in time? - No.
       The Commissioner: Now what is the real object of your questions. They are not helping me at all. Is your real object that you think more men belonging to your Union ought to be employed? These questions do not assist me one bit.
       Mr. Lewis: My point is this - and I think it is proved by the fact that there was a difficulty in getting the collapsible boat off - that more men that were on the ship should have been used to get off the boats.
       The Commissioner: With the exception of one boat all the boats were got down to the sea.
       Mr. Lewis: Surely one boat is important upon an occasion of this kind.
       The Commissioner: Yes, but there are particular circumstances applying to that boat. It was not the want of men.
14719. (Mr. Lewis.) But the boat could not be got off because the water was up and could not be got ready in time. (To the Witness.) You considered that everything was done that was reasonable with regard to the launching of the boats? - Yes.
14720. Now with regard to the look-out men. Did I understand that if the look-out men had had glasses and had been using them at the time, they would have seen the iceberg much quicker? - I could not say what you understood.
14721. Supposing when the iceberg region was approached they had been using their glasses would they in your opinion have seen the iceberg much quicker? - If they had had a glass glued to their eyes?
14722. If they had been looking at the time they saw the iceberg and rang the bridge? - Yes.
14723. If, prior to that, they had had a glass, could they have seen it some time before? - I really could not say.
14724. It is extremely probable, I suppose? - Not necessarily.
14725. I think you admitted you could see a greater distance with glasses? - Under certain conditions, yes.
14726. And on this night it was clear, was it not? - Yes.
14727. Would that be a night on which a glass would have been of service? - I have never seen icebergs through glasses so I really cannot say.
14728. If there had been glasses there it would have been extremely probable, one man would be using his eyes and the other his glasses? - Most improbable.
       The Commissioner: Do you really suggest that in a look-out like the crow’s-nest there is always one man with glasses and another man without glasses.
14729. (Mr. Lewis.) I suggest it is possible that one man would be using glasses and the other not. Do not you think it would have been advisable when approaching an ice-field, seeing you knew glasses had not been supplied to the look-out men, to have seen that they were supplied with a pair? - No.
14730. I understood you to say that you could yourself have seen the iceberg in time for the disaster to have been averted if you had been on the bridge? - I am afraid you have totally misunderstood me. I do not pretend to have been able to see it any further than my brother officer, Mr. Murdoch.

Page 340

14731. I understood you in reply to a question that you thought you could have seen it in time to have averted the accident? - I am afraid you have understood wrongly then.
14732. Can you tell me whether there were any orders with regard to firemen, whether they were stationed at all, those off watch? - No. I had no orders with regard to firemen.
14733. They seem not to have been used very much, and I want to know if you knew they had been stationed on any part of the deck; you could not say that? - No.
14734. Can you tell me whether sliding chocks for the collapsible boats would have been of any material assistance to you? - I could not.
14735. I understand that there is a patent chock which will enable collapsible boats to be put out. You have never seen them, perhaps? - No.
14736. With regard to speed, did I understand you aright this time, that you said you had never known speed reduced? - No, you are not correct.
14737. I understood the question was put, and you said you never understood speed was reduced? - No, that is wrong; you had misunderstood me totally.
14738. May I take it speed is frequently reduced crossing the Atlantic? - Under certain conditions.
14739. Is it not the fact the boats are nearly always in to time? - No.
14740. Have you been late frequently? - Yes, I have known a first class mail, a 21-knot boat, 36 hours late.
14741. You have known that on the White Star? - Yes, and been on her.

Examined by Mr. HOLMES.

14742. You told us that all the officers had been on the “Titanic” on the trial trip except Mr. Wilde? - Yes.
14743. You know he had had considerable experience on the “Olympic,” the sister ship? - I believe so.
14744. Were the boats on the “Titanic” in the forward and the after compartments carried in the same way? - Practically the same, with the exception of that small bulwark there.
14745. Are not they carried inboard? - I see what you mean. At sea they are carried with their keel on the rail of the ship. Those boats were inboard on their chocks. That is right.
14746. You have told us of the conversation with the Captain, in which he gave you instructions to call him if you were at all doubtful? - Yes.
14747. Had you, in fact, any kind of doubt during the rest of your watch? - None whatever.
14748. Was there any reason whatever why you should have any such doubt? - None.
14749. Had you had any ice or fog or haze reported to you? - About the ice track, do you mean?
14750. No, I mean from the look-out? - Oh, dear, no; none whatever.
14751. All you knew was that earlier in the day ice had been reported in a particular region? - Yes.
14752. And your previous experience had taught you that it did not mean by any means that you were necessarily going to meet it? - That is so.
14753. Would the effect of slowing your engines before you had seen any ice at all have simply been to keep you longer in the danger zone? - Yes.
14754. I take it your own eyesight is perfectly good? - I believe so.
14755. You and all the other officers have to pass a very stringent Board of Trade examination before you get your certificate? - Yes, they have, and subsequently.
14756. You have told us that you allotted men to each boat when you came on deck to get them uncovered. Did you intend those men to go into the boats as their crews? - Not necessarily.
14757. Simply to go round the decks and uncover the boats? - They were told off to their boat, and they would naturally remain at that boat until she was in the water, unless they got further orders.
14758. How many boats, in fact, did you superintend being lowered into the water? - It is rather difficult to say. I was working the whole time at the boats. How many I put in I really do not know - four, six, perhaps eight - three lifeboats at least, and a collapsible.
14759. Can you tell me what other duties the officers were to perform after that collision? - Speaking for myself, I had no other duties.
14760. No, generally; what were their duties generally. I take it that one officer would have to look after the rockets? - There was an officer looking after the rockets, an officer down below a couple of times to judge the amount of water and attending to the Morse signals and attending also to the boats.
14761. There were seven officers besides the Captain? - Yes.
14762. Do you consider you could have done with any less than that on board the “Titanic”? - Oh, yes.
14763. Can you tell me how many are required?
       The Commissioner: Is that the answer that you wanted?
       Mr. Holmes: It satisfies me, my Lord.
       The Witness: I mean to convey this, that, as proved, we could have managed the boats in the water with the weather in that condition without officers. It would not have mattered if there were only women in the boats. It was flat calm.
14764. Do you know of your own knowledge how many officers a ship like that can go to sea with and still comply with the law? - No, I have heard, but I have not taken much notice of it.
14765. Is it the fact they only require two certificated officers? - I believe it is something like that.
       The Commissioner: You must remember this witness is one of your own clients.
       Mr. Holmes: I know, my Lord.
       The Commissioner: Do not you think you can leave him alone?
       Mr. Holmes: If your Lordship will allow me to ask him a few more questions tomorrow morning?
       The Commissioner: No.
14766. (Mr. Holmes - To the Witness.) Can you tell me the last that you saw of Mr. Wilde before the ship went down? - The last I remember seeing of Mr. Wilde was quite a long time before the ship went down.
14767. And Mr. Murdoch? - Mr. Murdoch I saw practically at the actual moment that I went under water.
14768. Can you tell me where he was? - He was then working at the forward fall on the starboard side forward; that is the fall to connect to the collapsible boat.
14769. What was the last you saw of Mr. Moody? - I do not remember seeing Mr. Moody that night at all, though I am given to understand, from what I have gathered since, that Mr. Moody must have been standing quite close to me at the same time. He was on top of the quarters clearing away the collapsible boat on the starboard side, whilst Mr. Murdoch was working at the falls. If that is so, we were all practically in the water together.
14770. You stated that you asked the Carpenter to take soundings at No. 6? - No, I did not.
14771. Did you ask the Carpenter to take soundings anywhere? - No.
14772. Did you hear the Captain ask the Carpenter? - No.
14773. You mentioned in your evidence that the Carpenter had taken soundings and said that No. 6 was dry? - I did not say that exactly. I asked the Carpenter if No. 6 stokehold had any water in.

Page 341

Examined by Mr. COTTER.

14774. That is what I am trying to get at. What time was that when you asked him that? - I could not tell you.
14775. Can you give us any idea? - No. I met him somewhere on the boat deck.
14776. Was that after you had been to No. 6? - I really could not say.
14777. What time would it be after you had been got out of your bunk when you sent the Boatswain down to open these gangway doors? - I have already given the times as near as I possibly can, and the time I sent the Boatswain down; I think you will find that in the evidence.
14778. Can you tell us how the doors are made fast? - No, I cannot give you a detailed explanation.
14779. You do not know how? - They are secured by bolts.
14780. Is there a large iron boom across fastened by bolts? - I could not say.
14781. Are they very difficult to open? - The Carpenter opens those.
14782. Are they difficult? - I could not tell you; it is not my work.
14783. Have you seen one opened? - No.
14784. Have you any idea of the weight of one of those doors? - Yes, I have an idea.
14785. Will you give us some idea? - Yes, you get down to the forward steerage and then you will be at the door.
14786. I want the weight of it? - I beg your pardon, I thought you said way. I could not give you any idea.
14787. If it were once opened and lost its balance and swung against the ship’s side, the Carpenter and a crowd of men would have a job to get that back again? - Not necessarily.
14788. If I suggested to you that it would take at least four men to open one of those doors, would that be right? - Probably about that.
14789. And it would take more to close them? - Quite.
14790. Once she had swung against the ship’s side you would have to pull it back again, and you would have an awkward angle? - That all depends. I do not say it is necessarily a very hard job, it would depend principally on the list of the ship, or whether she had any list at all.
14791. If he was sent down to open them and the water reached up to the deck, when he found out his mistake, he would have a job to close them? - I did not say he had opened them.
14792. Supposing he had opened them? - Yes.
14793. Now I will take you to the collapsible boat. Is it not the fact when you unship one of those collapsible boats you have blocks and tackle fastened on the stays from the funnel? - No.
14794. Did you see no block and tackle on that stay from the funnel for the purpose of unshipping the collapsible boat? - Which are you speaking of?
14795. I am talking about the forward funnel on the port side; are not there small blocks and tackle on it? - No.
14796. How do you unship one of those Englehardt boats? - We never have unshipped one, but I see what you are getting at. There is a link in the funnel guy for the purpose of hooking on tackle and so getting the Englehardt from the top of the quarters down to the deck.
14797. I am right that you could put the block and tackle on to that link? - Yes, that is right.
14798. Was there any there that night? - Not that I am aware of.
14799. If you had had a block and tackle there you would have found it rather easy to unship it? - No, I should not have used it.
14800. It would have been of no use? - No.
       The Commissioner: You represent the interests of the stewards do you not?
       Mr. Cotter: I do.
       The Commissioner: These questions may have some general bearing, but they do not affect particularly the stewards, do they?
       Mr. Cotter: I think we are here to get as much information about the wreck as possible, and although I am representing the stewards I might get some information which may be useful to this Inquiry.
       The Commissioner: I said this information may be of use generally, but it does not affect particularly your clients, the stewards. I think when you have heard a witness examined generally by five or six different people it is becoming time to end it.
       Mr. Cotter: There has not been a question raised about these doors, which is a very important point. I am speaking as a practical man.
       The Commissioner: At present you were asking about some tackle, and suggesting that the gentleman should have used it if it was there, and he answers you that it was not there, and if it had been he would not have used it. Now that does not seem to me to advance the Inquiry one bit.
       Mr. Cotter: My contention is that if that tackle had been there, at least some of our men might have been saved as well as some of the passengers.
       The Commissioner: His answer is that he would not have used them.
14801. (Mr. Cotter.) It is rather peculiar to have tackle of that description for the purpose of unshipping boats and not to use it. I put it, as a practical seaman, it should be used when it is there to use, and is the only means of getting those boats safely on to the deck. Can you tell us who draws up the boat list, or who drew up the boat list on the “Titanic”? - It is the first officer’s duty on the White Star ships.
14802. Did you see a boat list drawn up on the “Titanic”? - Yes.
14803. Did every member of the crew get a boat station? - I did not examine it in absolute detail and check it by the list.
14804. Is it general to have every member of the crew assigned to a boat station? - Yes.
14805. Also hand bulkhead door stations? - No.
14806. Who gives those out? - I could not tell you.
14807. Do you know where the hand bulkhead doors are stationed on the “Titanic”? - On the various decks.
14808. Did you ever see any door drill on the “Titanic”? - I have seen them all closed and opened.
14809. Where was that? - In Belfast.
14810. Did you see them on the voyage at all? - No.
14811. What is the general rule on board a ship - I am speaking to you now as an officer of many years’ standing - in case of collision. If everybody knew their stations, what kind of alarm is given to the crew to bring them to their stations? - We try to avoid all alarm.
14812. Is it not a rule at boat drill that a bugle goes? - Yes.
14813. If it is good for boat drill why is it not good to bring the men to the station? - I could not tell you.
14814. What alarm do you give for the closing of the bulkhead doors? - We do not sound any alarm; we do things as quietly as possible.
14815. What order do you give on board a ship at sea? - To close them.
14816. What is the order? - To close them.
14817. But there is a signal given? - No.
14818. What is the signal? - No signal.
14819. How is the order sent round? - Various means, telephone, telegraph.
14820. Have you no general bulkhead door drill? - No, we have not.
14821. At a specified time every morning, the same as other companies?
       The Commissioner: You must not say, “The same as other companies.”
       Mr. Cotter: It is a fact, my Lord.
       The Commissioner: It may be, but you must not give evidence.
14822. (Mr. Cotter - To the Witness.) There is no general bulkhead door drill on board your ship? - Are you speaking of seamen? You say you are speaking from the point of view of a practical seaman. Are you speaking of seamen’s bulkhead door drill; I take it you are.

Page 342

14823. Generally, throughout the ship? - No.
14824. There is none? - Not with regard to seamen.

Examined by Mr. LAING.

14825. Do you belong to the Royal Naval Reserve? - Yes.
14826. What rank do you hold? - Sub-lieutenant.
14827. With regard to the equipments of lifeboats were these gone through by the two junior officers? - Yes.
14828. In Belfast? - Yes.
14829. And all checked through, I think? - Four officers, as a matter of fact.
14830. Two on each side? - Yes.
14831. On the 14th, during your evening watch, did you take any stellar observations? - I did.
14832. Were they worked out by the junior officer? - They were.
14833. Can you take those observations if it is not clear? - No, you cannot.
14834. You were asked if you told Mr. Murdoch about the position of this ice. Was it in the night order book, do you know? - It was.
14835. And would Mr. Murdoch necessarily have the night order book? - He would necessarily initial it; yes.
14836. You were asked if you thought the vessel was going down when you first got news of the water, and you said, No. Did you know at that time how many compartments had been pierced? - No, I did not.
14837. With regard to this gangway door on the after side of the vessel, do you know how high above the water that would be? - Do you mean when the ship is on an even keel? - I really could not say.
14838. I have had it measured; it is 15 feet above water in the afterend of the ship. You were asked again whether you would act under your own authority in a case of emergency? - Yes.
14839. And you said there were rules? - The White Star rules.
14840. Are the White Star rules contained in this red book? - Yes.
14841. I will hand up a copy to my Lord (handing the same). The particular one about the Officer of the Watch your Lordship will see on page 32. That is the rule you were referring to? - Yes.
14842. “Station. - At sea the station of the Officer of the Watch is on the bridge, which he must on no account leave either night or day without being relieved. When the Watch is changed the officer who is being relieved will remain on the bridge and in charge during the change. He will see that the seamen placed as look-outs do not quit their posts until relieved, and he must deliver to the officer relieving him all orders which have still to be executed. He is the responsible officer until he leaves the bridge, and must not leave the bridge until the officer relieving him has had time to familiarise himself with his surroundings. Duties: (A.) He must remember that his first duty is to keep a good look-out and avoid running into danger, and although it is desirable to obtain the position of the ship as often as possible, he must on no account neglect his look-out to do so. He must also preserve order in the ship. (b) He must not alter the course without consulting the Commander, unless to avoid some sudden danger, risk of collision, etc. (c) When he believes the ship to be running into danger it is his duty to act at once upon his own responsibility, at the same time he will immediately pass the word to call the Commander.” That is what you referred to? - Yes.
14843. “When it is his duty to alter the course for some approaching or crossing vessel, he must do so in plenty of time, signify by sound signals such alteration, and give such vessel a wide berth. (e) He must call the Commander at once if it becomes foggy, hazy, if he does not think he can see a safe distance, or if in doubt about anything. (f) He is expected to make himself thoroughly conversant with the usual channel courses, and to be thoroughly posted in the run of the ship. Any doubt he may have as to safety of the position of the ship, or of the course steered, he will immediate express to the Commander in a respectful manner.” That is the rule you had in your mind? - Yes.
14844. One matter I want to clear up which occurs in the evidence of some other witness. Had you any difficulty about finding the plug of one of these collapsible boats? - Yes.
14845. Just tell us about that? - When we were at work at the port collapsible boat, the first collapsible, it was suggested that there was a plug in the boat, and not being very familiar with these boats and having a box of matches, I searched round and came to the conclusion there was no plug.
14846. As a matter of fact they do not have plugs? - They do not.
14847. So your search was in vain? - Yes.
14848. Do you remember the “Carpathia” picking you up? - Yes.
14849. Did she throw up any rockets? - She did.
14850. How many? - I think I saw two.
14851. How many hours would that be about before you were picked up? - That was whilst it was still dark. It seemed fully an hour before we were picked up.
14852. What I wanted to get at was what sort of interval would there be between the last rocket from the “Titanic” and the two that you saw from the “Carpathia”? - I suppose about five hours.
14853. I think you said two? - Two I think I remember seeing. There may have been more.
14854. Do you know what sort? - The ordinary distress signals, the same as we were using.
14855. With stars? - Yes.
14856. (The Commissioner.) Were you near enough to hear them? - Oh, no.
14857. (Mr. Laing.) Can you help us at all about any dead bodies that were left in one of the boats? - I understand that there were three dead bodies left in one of the collapsible boats when the remainder were taken out.
14858. You say you understand? - It was not in my boat.
14859. Did you see them? - No.
14860. Did you have some report? - I have heard so since.
14861. After you were taken on the “Carpathia,” did you yourself go round the boats belonging to the “Titanic”? - I did.
14862. What object had you? - Because there was a report that there was not bread and water in some of the boats. In all the boats on the “Carpathia,” with the exception of the emergency boats, in which neither bread nor water is carried, there was bread and water in every lifeboat.
14863. Did they save all the “Titanic’s” lifeboats on the “Carpathia”? - No, there were some turned adrift. There were 13 saved - 11 lifeboats and two emergency boats.
14864. Were those you are talking about taken to America? - Yes.
14865. With regard to the lamps which those lifeboats carry, did you yourself see any lights while you were afloat in the boat? - I did, several.
14866. From other boats in the sea, I mean? - Yes.
14867. In which the people were? - Yes. I also found several lamps hanging in the thwarts when we were on board the “Carpathia” which evidently had not been used.
14868. (The Commissioner.) Lamps belonging to the “Titanic”? - Lamps belonging to the “Titanic’s” lifeboats.
14869. (Mr. Laing.) They had not been used? - They had evidently been hidden under the thwarts by some people in the boats.

Page 343

14870. With regard to the question you asked the carpenter, and the information he gave you that No. 6 stokehold was dry -
       The Commissioner: Was that No. 6 stokehold or No. 6 section?
14871. (Mr. Laing.) I was going to clear that up, my Lord. (To the Witness.) Do you know where No. 6 stokehold is? - Yes; it is the forward stokehold immediately adjoining No. 3.
       Mr. Laing: The sixth stokehold, as we number them, is the after stokehold in No. 4 Section.
       The Solicitor-General: That is what I thought.
       The Witness: No. I think it is understood aboard the ship that No. 6 stokehold is forward. Because I made a particular point of asking the engineers why it was - I was rather confused when we were loading 5 and 6 stokeholds when going through the bunkers - and they told me No. 6 was forward. They numbered from aft, forward. It is rather confusing, but nevertheless the stokehold known on board the ship as No. 6 is the stokehold adjoining No. 3.
       The Commissioner: That is not according to the plan.
14872. (Mr. Laing.) No, my Lord, it is not. (To the Witness.) Are you thinking of boiler sections or stokeholds? How many stokeholds do you think there are on the ship altogether? - Six, I believe.
14873. Then I think you must be thinking of boiler sections? - Oh, I see what you mean, yes. I was really alluding to the boiler sections of course.
14874. No. 6 is the forward end, as you say? - Yes.
14875. When you called it No. 6 stokehold? - I meant No. 6 boiler section.
14876. No. 6 boiler section is the one which we know was full? - Yes, that explains it. I am glad you explained that, because of what the carpenter told me. No. 6 stokehold was a mistake; I ought to have said No. 6 boiler room.
14877. He may have misunderstood your question? - He probably misunderstood me.
14878. If he meant No. 6 stokehold I think I am right in saying that that is the after stokehold of No. 4 section? - Yes.
14879. However, the question you asked the carpenter was with regard to No. 6 stokehold? - Yes.
14880. And that is the answer you got, that it was dry? - Yes.
14881. Approximately, how long before you left the ship was that, quite roughly? - I should think that was fully an hour before I left the ship.
14882. Did you ever hear of any water being in the engine room? - No.
14883. Up to the time you left the ship? - No.
14884. Did you have any talk with Fleet, the look-out man? - On the “Carpathia”?
14885. Yes? - Yes.
14886. He has not been called yet, but you might tell us what he said. - I asked him what he knew about the accident and induced him to explain the circumstances. He went on to say that he had seen the iceberg so far ahead. I particularly wanted to know how long after he struck the bell the ship’s head moved, and he informed me that practically at the same time that he struck the bell he noticed the ship’s head moving under the helm.
14887. That is what you told us before. - Yes.
14888. Did he tell you anything else? - With regard to distance?
14889. No, with regard to weather or conditions? - Oh, yes. He said it was clear.
14890. That is really what I wanted to know. - Oh yes.
14891. Did he say anything about haze? - No, he never said anything about haze.
14892. He never complained about haze, or anything of that sort? - No.

Re-examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL.

14893. There are only two matters which I have to ask you about. First of all, this last thing which you have been asked. You say you had some conversation with Fleet, the look-out man, when you got to the “Carpathia,” and you have told us what he said. You gathered from him, apparently, the impression that the helm was probably put over before and not after the report from the look-out? - Distinctly before the report.
14894. That was the inference you drew? - Yes.
14895. I should call your attention to this. We have had the evidence of the Quartermaster, who was steering at the time - a man named Hichens. Has your attention been called to the fact that he distinctly says that the order “Hard a starboard” was given after this report, and not before? - I was not aware of that.
       The Solicitor-General: It is at page 41.
       The Commissioner: I remember that quite well.
       The Solicitor-General: He distinctly says so.
       The Witness: I am only giving what Fleet told me, you understand.
14896. What he says is they heard three bells, that there was a telegraph, and the answer “Thank you” from Mr. Moody, that he reported an iceberg right ahead to Mr. Murdoch, and that Mr. Murdoch rushed to the telegraph to stop the engines, and at the same time ordered “Hard-a-starboard”? - Exactly.
14897. If that is right, your impression gathered from Fleet must be wrong? - If Hichens is right, then Fleet must be wrong.
14898. The other thing is this: there were two look-out men at that time; the other was Lee? - Yes.
14899. He was also saved? - Yes.
14900. Did you have any conversation with him? - No.
14901. We have had Lee’s evidence, and Lee says there was some haze. But you had no conversation? - No, I had no conversation with him at all.
14902. The other matter I want to put to you is this. You said today in answer to one of my learned Friends that you thought 24 knots could have been got out of this vessel, that that was the view you had formed? - That in a year or so’s time she might have eventually reached 24 knots.
14903. She tends to improve in speed, I suppose? - Yes.
14904. You remember giving evidence in America, and I see a question was put to you. You said something about speed, and you were asked what you would call real good speed - that is for this ship - and your answer, as reported, is “When the ship was built we only expected her to go 21 knots.” Is that right? - When I say “we,” that is as far as we heard generally we expected a 21 knot ship.
14905. You go on, “Therefore, all over 21 we thought very good”? - Yes.
14906. That was the view of yourself and your brother officers at the time of this voyage.
14907. (The Commissioner.) Before you go, I want to ask you with reference to the sinking of the “Titanic.” You know we have heard from several witnesses that the afterpart of the ship which, shortly before the foundering was in the air, more or less righted itself. That has been stated. Now supposing this to be the ship (demonstrating) and she turned up in this way, what I want to know is, from your observations, is it possible that having turned up in that way and being, one may say, half submerged, she broke in two, her afterpart coming down, and that then she went down and the afterpart came up in the air? Do you understand? - I follow you quite clearly. I should not in any circumstances think that was so. I should think it was quite impossible.
14908. It is suggested that perhaps you, being in the water, would not see that righting of the afterpart of the ship at all, and that you possibly only saw her after she had got in that position and was going down? - I should not think so, my Lord. I should not think, after once she had shown a tendency to break, and was weakened, she would ever have the strength to right again.
14909. That is your view? - That is my view.
14910. You do not give credit to those witnesses who say that the afterpart of the ship, having once been up in the air, righted itself? - No, my Lord, I do not.

(The Witness withdrew.)

(Adjourned to tomorrow at 10.30 o’clock.)