LOSS OF STEAMSHIP "TITANIC"
Lord Mersey's Report.
Motion made and Question proposed,
"That the Report and recommendations of the
investigation into the circumstances attending
the foundering of the steamship 'Titanic' be
now considered."
-[The Chancellor of the Exchequer.]
Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: I think it may be for the
convenience of the House as a whole that I should
rise at once in order to make a general statement
of the views of the shipping community upon the
Report of the Court of Inquiry into the "Titanic"
disaster, and also upon the draft rules which
have been recently issued by the President of the
Board of Trade. I have to-day the honour of speaking
in a representative capacity on behalf of the whole
shipping community of this country. I was asked by
the Shipowners' Parliamentary Committee, which
represents nine-tenths of the total tonnage of the
United Kingdom, whether I could present their case
to this House, and I have also been asked in a similar
way by the Mercantile Marine Association, representing
all the masters and officers of our merchant service,
by most of the underwriters, and also by the
Institution of Naval Architects. I mention these
facts as it is essential for the House to
appreciate that the views I am going to express
are the views entertained not only by an individual
Member, but by those great representative bodies,
and are unanimously entertained by them. In addition,
these views are the views of the Advisory Committee
of the Board of Trade. That Advisory Committee is a
body of an extremely authoritative and representative
character. The constitution is settled partly by
the Act of 1906, under which the President of the
Board of Trade is given authority to constitute such
an advisory Committee, and also under a later act of
a few years ago under which for certain purposes,
such as boats and life-saving appliances, additional
members have to be added. Its constitution was
described by sir Norman Hill, the Chairman, in a letter
published in the "Times" quite recently, but I think
it is essential that this House, in considering the
Question that is to-day before it, should be in
possession of all facts as to the constitution of
the Committee. The letter, which in view of the
great importance of this question, I propose to read
to the House, was in the following terms:-
"The committee itself is formed of twenty members,
of whom five are nominated by the shipowners'
associations, seven by associations representing the
masters, officers, engineers, and crews, two by
associations representing underwriters, two by
associations representing shipbuilders and naval
architects, and four are added by the Board of
Trade. Of the added members three are shipowners,
of whom two have had many years' experience in
command of vessels in the merchant service, and one
is the representative of the pilots.
"The nominated members go out of office every
second year, and the existing committee was appointed
less than a year ago. For the purposes of its recent
inquiry into the Life-Saving Regulations there were
added to the committee, to comply with the requirements
of the 17th schedule of the Merchant Shipping Act, two
additional representatives of the under-writers.
"The committee as so formed co-opted one ship-owner,
one master mariner, two shipbuilders, and the principal
expert advisers of Lloyd's Register and of the British
Corporation. The committee who signed the report
therefore consisted of twenty-eight members, of whom
nine represented underwriters, and four represented
shipbuilders and navalarchitects."
I think the House will agree that the Committee is
an extremely representative one. The views of the shipping
community, as represented by the various bodies to which I
have referred and by the Advisory Committee, are unaaimous
in condemning the rules which the President of the Board
of Trade proposes to put into statutary force. Everyone
outside the Board of Trade who is qualified to express an
opinion joins in that condemnation. The object of everyone
of us is, of course, the same. We are at one with the
President of the Board of Trade in desiring to ensure the
greatest safety for life at sea, and shipowners have not
shrunk, and will not shrink, from all necessary expenditure
for the purpose of attaining that end. There
are some who entertain an unworthy suspicion that
shipowners make money at the risk of human life. Wrecks
and loss of life are alike bad business. It is the
foundation of a shipowner's prosperity in business to
win a reputation for safe ships and not for losing human
lives. It is upon that that his low rates of insurance
depend and that he gets his cargoes and gets his
passengers. We may at once push aside that unworthy
suspicion, and this House will not entertain it. How
earnest and how successful the efforts of shipowners have
been during the last twenty years in their endeavours to
effect greater safety for those who travel in their ships
is proved by the records of those last twenty years. A few
figures I must give, because they are so striking. Twenty
years ago the average annual loss of life in the British
mercantile marine was 2,000. Today it is 700. The number
of casualties involving loss of life twenty years ago,
year by year, was on average 321. To-day it is 145, or
less than half. And those figures can only be appreciated
if at the same time we bear in mind that the number of
voyages performed per annum by British ships has
enormously increased, and that to-day the average is well
over a quarter of a million.
On the strength of those facts as to national
progress and business interest, I ask this House to
believe me when I say that the shipowners when considering
the draft rules which the President of the Board of Trade
has framed since the "Titanic" disaster put them to the
one supreme test- are they or are they not conducive to
the safety of life at sea? That is the test by which they
judge them, and by which they say they stand condemned. It
is because they fail in that test that I am standing up
now on behalf of the shipping community to protest against
those rules. The House will probably remember that when
the Debate on the "Titanic" disaster took place earlier in
the year it was stated that the existing life-saving rules
were introduced practically in them from then to the
present time. Under those rules the basis of life-saving
accommodation, which includes boats and rafts, was the
gross register tonnage of the ship, a certain scale
providing that a ship of a certain tonnage should carry a
certain number of boats and increasing the number of boats
as the gross tonnage increased....
...the establishment of main routes in the North
Atlantic by the voluntary action of the shipowners has
done much to produce greater safety at sea. Some of the
worst disasters in the North Atlantic were brought about
by vessels taking certain tracks, but that danger has been
eliminated quite voluntarily, and I think I am right in
saying that almost every regular liner now has a regular
course, which has been laid down after great
consideration, and navigation dangers are thereby avoided.
That is what has been done to secure safety at sea, and it
has been done voluntarily by the shipowners acting on the
advice of their technical advisers, constructional and
nautical. None of these steps have been adopted as a
result of interference on the part of this House, and,
therefore, I do not see why it is necessary under these
circumstances that the Board of Trade should come forward
with further fresh proposals.
I object also to the fact that the board of Trade
have gone in for that absurd fetish "Boats for all" -one
of the most ridiculous proposals ever put forward. It is a
newspaper policy- it is a policy originating with writers
in the newspapers, but it has never been advocated by any
person who has had practical experience in connection with
ships, neither has it been advocated by habitual
passengers. On these great passenger liners the majority
of the passengers are people constantly travelling. They
know perfectly well whether they are in a good ship or a
bad ship; they are people who can demand and obtain dinner
a la carte instead of table d'hote, and they are equally
capable of insisting on having boats for all if they think
it is in the least necessary in their own interests.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend will let me point out that
even he does not carry this policy of "boats for all" to
its full length, for he has stated that it may be
abandoned in the case of classes 7, 8, and 9, which deal
with passenger vessels which do not go far from the shore
and are usually in smooth waters that "boats for all" were
most needed, because, if you really get into rough water,
boats are not likely to be of the slightest use. The only
possible chance of saving life by boats is when the vessel
is in smooth water. That, I submit, is a sine qua non.
Speaking from my own experience, I may say that my firm
has carried a large number of passengers Asiatics, whose
lives are as dear to them as are their lives to Europeans;
we have carried houndreds of thousands of such people, and
there has never been any suggestion that boats should be
provided for all. That never could be done for the class
of persons carried; they are miserably poor, and could not
possibly afford to pay for the accommodation which would be
involved in boats for all. Yet, during the forty-five
years we have carried on this traffic, not one single
person has lost his life, so that the life-saving
appliances which have had to be provided have actually
proved to be so much waste.
But let us look at the particular case of the
"Titanic." I will take my facts from those to be found in
Lord Mersey's Report. The last boat was launched on the
star-board side at 1.40 a.m. and on the port side at 2.5.
The ship foundered at 2.20. Does any sensible person
believe that, during that last quarter of an hour, if
there had been boats on the deck sufficient to accommodate
the whole of the passengers, they could have been
launched? Lord Mersey has nowhere stated that, had there
been more boats on the "Titanic," more people would have
been saved, and I do not believe there is any responsible
person who has gone through the Report and
studied the facts who would say, with any positive
conviction, that, had there been more boats, more persons
would have been saved. Personally I do not believe any
more would have been saved. If you study the facts as they
are set out you will see it is not reasonable to suppose
that more people would have been saved by the existence of
more boats. What might have saved the lives of these
unfortunate people? It is quite possible, if the bulkheads
had been differently constructed so that the ship could
have been kept afloat five hours longer, everybody would
have been saved, as in that time assistance could have
been secured. I think the disaster to the "Titanic" shows
that we must look to improved ship construction rather
than to increased boat accommodation for means of safety.
If you turn to the Report of Lord Mersey you will see at
the very beginning what was the cause of the disaster. I
should like to read it to the House:-
"The loss of the ship was due to collision with an
iceberg, and the excessive speed at which the ship was
being navigated."
In the whole of the proposed rules and regulations I
do not gather there is the slightest indication that they
mean to take any steps whatever (sic) to prevent the
navigation of ships at excessive speed. Yet that was
undoubtedly the cause of the disaster. Later on in the
Report we find this passage referring to Captain Smith...
Lord Mersey said:-
"He made a mistake, a very grevious mistake, but one in
which, in face of the practice and of past experience,
negligence cannot be said to have had any part, and in
the abscence of negligence it is impossible in my opinion
to fix Captain Smith with blame. It is, however, to be
hoped that the last has been heard of the practice, and
that for the future it will be abandoned for what we know
to be more prudent and wiser measures. What was a mistake
in the case of the 'Titanic' would, without doubt, be
negligence in any similar case in the future."
That is the real lesson of the Report. It is that a
vessel must not be navigated at extreme speed when the
circumstances are dangerous, and if the Board of Trade
made recommendations ensuring that navigation at
dangerous speed under certain conditions such as those
that led to this disaster should not be persisted in they
would do a great deal more to secure safety than by
promulgating these regulations with regard to life-
saving. The true policy is to concentrate all one's
efforts on saving the ship. Save the ship and the safety
of the people, and the cargo follows. But if you allow
one's mind to be distracted from the effort to save the
ship in order to consider how you are to save the people
after the loss of the ship, you are likely to lose many
more lives. The safety of the ship should be the first
and only consideration....
...I hope therefore that the President under no
circumstances whatever will press the question until he
has got these Reports. Then I find on page 4 of this
White Paper that-
"lifeboats must be of a prescribed build. In the term
'lifeboat' is included the 'decked lifeboat,' but not a
collapsible boat."
In Lord Mersey's Report, as he issued it, he states
that there should be provision, by lifeboat and raft
accommodation, for all on board. Under these circumstances
I suggest that the Report as issued by the Board of Trade
is diametrically opposed to the finding of Lord Mersey
himself. I should like the President of the Board of Trade
to inform the House on what grounds he has set aside the
finding of Lord Mersey, and has contented himself with
saying, "We are not agreed on the question of collapsible
boats and rafts and that sort of thing, but we pin our
faith to the lifeboats themselves." Has the right hon.
Gentleman considered what will be the result if lifeboats
have to be provided for everyone who is carried on a large
ocean liner? In the ordinary course boats which carry
perhaps 3,000 souls, crew and passengers, might be calculated
to carry on an average fifty lifeboats. In the case of the
"Titanic" they were exceptionally large boats which carried,
I think, in the ordinary course up to sixty-three; so you
have to find lifeboat accommodation for sixty different boats.
Surely that must hamper the ship as well as the ship
constructor. Surly if these are to be in davits, hung under
each other, instead of assisting in the safety of life at sea,
we should be rather handicacapping it, because you could not
have the proper space in which to hang up the boats. Of course,
if the Pesident suggests that instead of carrying 3,000
passengers you are going to carry half that number, I can
quite understand what he means. It simply means that the
shipowners are to be handicapped by foreign competition. May
I suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that if,
instead of pinning himself down to lifeboats at all, he would
agree to life-saving apparatus in the form of collapsible boats
or rafts in addition to lifeboats, I think the large majority
of shipowners would be prepared to accept that. Certainly, if
on the other hand, he intends to adhere to the suggestions
in this Report, I tell him at once that he will meet with the
greatest opposition from the shipowners themselves....
....[Mr.Wilkie]...I am one of those who do not wish to
take away one atom of responsibility from the shipowners,
but I contend, as a representative of the public, that
the public ought to be assured that a shipowner when
he charges the price of a ticket to New York or anywhere
else has taken the proper measures to carry that
contract out in safety. when a great accident occurred
and the Press was full of the "Titanic" disaster, it
came as a shock to the public that the number of
lifeboats carried was according to the tonnage and not
according to the number of souls on board. Everyone
remembers the picture of the wreck of a famous steamer
where every soul was saved. I wish that that could
have been said of the "Titanic," and I believe that with
proper organisation on board and with more lifeboats,
every soul could have been saved. It was because that
nearly everybody on board thought the ship was unsinkable
that there was no panic and no rushing for the boats,
and good discipline was maintained. We ought to do all
we can to ensure the continuance of that confidence.
Mr. Royden, one of the fairest shipowners in the country,
and President of the Council of the Chamber of Shipping
of Liverpool, in a pamphlet sent out to every Member,
says:
"There have been men, and I am afraid there will
always be men owning or controlling ships ready to make
money as swindlers, preying on the general public."
We do not keep the police for honest men, but for rogues;
and when a shipowner makes a statement of that kind the
Board of Trade ought to look after these men, even though
they are few. Why should they be allowed to sacrifice other
men's lives? In the report of the Commission on Loss of Life
at Sea, there are letters published from men going on their
last voyage, who did not see why their wives should be made
widows in order that other men might become rich. Every
precaution is necessary, and I hope the Board of Trade will
wake up to its responsibilities. Whether this Amendment is
carried or not, they ought to have their hands strengthened
and power given them, not to take away the right of the
shipowners, but to see that at lest a minimum of safety is
provided. I hope that as a result of this discussion some
method will be adopted whereby the House can be kept in
close touch with the Marine Department of the Board of Trade,
and that there may be restored that confidence which is
rapidly dwindling at the present time.
Mr. JOYCE: The main Debate has centred round the issue of the
draft regulations. I think he ought to have no cause of
complaint
at the turn this Debate has taken. The whole thing hinges
upon the safety of life at sea. In dealing with the main
question of the building of the ships of the future I agree
entirely with the Noble Lord the Member for Devonport, who
brings such a large practical knowledge to this question,
that the greatest measure of safety that it is possible to
provide in the construction should be encouraged by the
Board of Trade. The shipbuilders and the shipowners themselves,
I think, should fall into line with every reasonable suggestion
put forward by the Board of Trade to see that the ship should
have the maximum of safety. But, when all is said and done,
no matter how the ship is constructed, accidents will occur
at sea which will sink any ship. I think practically every
man thought the "Titanic" was unsinkable, and I believe had
she struck the iceberg head-on she would have been unsinkable,
One, two, or three of her fore watertight compartments might
have filled, but the rest of the compartments would have kept
the ship afloat. Driving, however, at an excessive rate of speed
made it, as the Noble Lord said, that the whole of the ship
must have been ripped up. No ship, no matter how she was built,
could have floated under such circumstances. I believe that is
the main point in the question of safety of life at sea.
When all has been done you must come back to the question
of boats, and the most important question here is the question
of manning. No matter how the ship is built she will have to
carry lifeboats, and as many of the best type as she can carry.
Every practical man I have met and spoken with on this question
of late has stated his opinion that the greater the number of
ordinary open first-class lifeboats that can be carried the
better...
.... It has been said that boat accommodation could not be
arranged for except at the expense of the safety of the ship,
on account of its being likely to make the ship top-heavy.
But it does not appear to have occurred to any defender of
the Board of Trade that the top deck of the "Titanic" was
set apart for the expensive and luxurious pleasure of a rich
class, with suites of rooms at œ700 or œ800. [Several Hon.
Members: "No."] So I am informed. at any rate, these
facilities are arranged for, and by clearing the decks of
these facilities more room could be secured for boats. There
is another point to which I attach great importance. The loss
of life was 1,500, and very significantly, it was far heavier
amongst the third than amongst the first or second- class
passengers. Why were fifty- three out of seventy six children
of the first and second-class passengers lost, if it was
possible to save all the childern of the first and
second-class passengers? Similarly in the case of women.
Lord Mersey was not, in my opinion, the man who ought to have
conducted the inquiry. His connection as a shipping lawyer
with the shipping interests, in my judgement, unfitted him
for the post. But in his Report Lord Mersey says that the
third-class passengers were not unfairly treated. I suppose
that is simply because it cannot be shown that there were
third-class passengers waiting and that the boats were there
available; that those who had command of the boats purposely
picked out the first or the second-class passengers and left
the third. But nobody has ever suggested such a thing. What
we do say, and what I say, is that the construction of these
ships is of such a character that the third-class passengers
cannot win their way to the boats. That is practically admitted
by Lord Mersey in his Report. He says that it is one of the
reasons for the large proportion of casualties amongst the
third-class passengers- one of the difficulties was that these
third-class passengers have their quarters at the extreme end
of the ship. In the modern Atlantic liner the arrangements are
such that the third-class passengers are kept as far as possible
from the first and second class. There are four or five decks
between them, and the third-class passengers have to climb four
or five staircases in order to get to the boats. In many
instances, at least in some, there was no communication
whatever,
for doors were locked. No wonder there was this tremendous loss
of life amongst the third-class passengers.
I want to make just another point. I am sorry to have to
make it, but there is the question of loading that ought to be
inquired into. In 1906 the President of the Board of Trade, by
a stroke of the pen, added a million tons to the carrying
capacity of the ships then built in this country. Over and again
Members of this House have asked questions of Ministers
concerning that change in the free board made under the Merchant
Shipping Act. The last question I remember was put by the hon.
Member for Devizes. his question led the President of the Board
of Trade to state that there had been actually less loss of life
since the change was made than before. When that statement is
examined carefully it will be seen that the instances referred
to by the President of the Board were confined to those washed
overboard. If he had carried his investigation further and
answered the question put, he would have had to confess that
there had been a distinct increase in the loss of life taking
all classes of life lost together. I do not wish to talk the
Motion out. I wish to go to a Division.
Mr. PETO rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the
Question be now put," but Mr.Speaker withheld his assent and
declined then to put that Question.
Debate resumed.
Mr.BOOTH: In view of what the hon. Member has said, may I
read what Mr. Harbison, who represented the third-class
passengers said at the inquiry.
I am sure hon. Members would not like to allow
11.0 P.M. that statement to pass unnoticed.
Lord ROBERT CECIL rose in his place, and claimed to move,
"That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld
his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
Debate resumed.
Mr.BOOTH: Mr. Harbison said: "I wish to say distinctly that no
evidence in the course of this Inquiry-"
And, it being Eleven o'Clock, the Debate stood Adjourned.
