Dave Gittins
Member
I’d like to clear up a few points about Captain Lord and the court. I hope I’ll be excused for not quoting chapter and verse, as I’ve not got time to look up every reference. Everything is in the inquiry transcripts and the Board of Trade files.
The American inquiry of course had no power to prosecute Lord. Even it’s power to make him testify was shaky, as will be found in British Embassy correspondence. It can also be argued the Senator Smith considerably exceeded the terms of the Senate resolution that established his committee but the British decided not to make a diplomatic fuss over it. Nevertheless, Captain Lord willingly gave evidence in the US. He might have been surprised at how strongly Senator Smith condemned him, as the evidence given in America is quite thin. Neither Stone, Stewart nor Gibson testified but Smith admitted hearsay evidence from Cyril Evans and Gill’s dodgy affidavit.
In Britain Lord Mersey had full power to call him but Mersey and Sir Rufus Isaacs agreed that Mersey’s court had no power to try Lord for anything he may or may not have done. This was because he was not directly involved in the accident, as he would have been had Californian collided with Titanic. His evidence was relevant to question 24, which asked, “What was the cause of the loss of the Titanic, and of the loss of life which thereby ensued or occurred?” Arguably, Lord’s alleged failure to render assistance had added to the loss of life. He was also asked to give evidence about the radio side of the affair and other minor matters. His lawyer, Robertson Dunlop, never intervened to stop Lord answering. Lord thus gave answers that would have been incriminating had he been on trial. Mersey made it clear during later legal discussion that Lord could have refused to answer.
As a result of evidence relating to Californian, question 24 had an extra section added. “(b) What vessels had the opportunity of rendering assistance to the Titanic and, if any, how was it that assistance did not reach the Titanic before the S.S. Carpathia arrived?” Mersey concluded that Lord had failed to render assistance when in a position to do so and greatly exaggerated the help he might have given, as we know.
Consideration was given to prosecuting Lord under the Maritime Conventions Act of 1911 or the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894. I know of no thought being given to prosecuting Herbert Stone. Opinion within the Board of Trade was divided. The Nautical Adviser, Captain Young, favoured prosecution but the lawyers advised against it. One considered a conviction was unlikely on the evidence. It was also considered that Lord could not receive a fair trial in view of the evidence given publicly in both inquiries. Some felt that he had been punished enough by the bad publicity he received. My personal opinion is that there was a feeling that enough bad British seamanship had been advertised already and it was time to quieten things down. The President of the Board of Trade therefore decided not to prosecute. (The President was the political head of the Board of Trade and sat in Parliament, a point not always understood).
Lord was therefore left in a position where he had a very public black mark against him but he could not get his “day in court”. He could not appeal against a conviction that he did not have. Such a position is not unique. In a recent local case a known criminal was stated by the Coroner to be very probably the murderer of the deceased but the police were not able to assemble enough evidence to prosecute successfully. (They got him on other charges and he’s in jail). After some attempts to reopen the case and a particularly scurrilous attack on Captain Moore of Mount Temple, Lord let the matter drop until after the production of the film A Night to Remember but did not succeed in having his case reopened during his lifetime.
The point to note about Lord’s defence of his inaction is that he did not plead that he did not take action because it would endanger his ship. His story was always that no distress signals were seen. Therefore none were mentioned in the log and no action was required. He admitted to being told of one rocket, which did not in itself constitute a distress signal. He put the blame on Stone, who would have told him if distress signals were seen. He denied hearing from Stone about the other rockets and denied hearing from Gibson, except for hearing him open and close the chartroom door. He said that had he known of the emergency he would have attempted to assist, though it would have been dangerous.
The reasons for Lord’s defence are pure speculation. Was he really so tired that the messages from Stone via voice pipe failed to register, even though he had to get up from the chartroom settee and go to his cabin to answer them? Did Gibson’s message also fail to register? Or did Lord realise after the event that he had been told of distress signals and had not attempted to assist when in a position to do, for reasons known only to himself? (Incomprehension? Caution? Timidity?) Surely he realised by the afternoon of April 15th that he had been on the same side of the icefield as Titanic and could have cleared the ice by steering east then heading cautiously south. If that came out in court his position would be bad. He may therefore have decided to devise a story in which he did not know that assistance was needed. That might have seemed safer than claiming that he could not safely do what Captain Rostron had so boldly done.
The American inquiry of course had no power to prosecute Lord. Even it’s power to make him testify was shaky, as will be found in British Embassy correspondence. It can also be argued the Senator Smith considerably exceeded the terms of the Senate resolution that established his committee but the British decided not to make a diplomatic fuss over it. Nevertheless, Captain Lord willingly gave evidence in the US. He might have been surprised at how strongly Senator Smith condemned him, as the evidence given in America is quite thin. Neither Stone, Stewart nor Gibson testified but Smith admitted hearsay evidence from Cyril Evans and Gill’s dodgy affidavit.
In Britain Lord Mersey had full power to call him but Mersey and Sir Rufus Isaacs agreed that Mersey’s court had no power to try Lord for anything he may or may not have done. This was because he was not directly involved in the accident, as he would have been had Californian collided with Titanic. His evidence was relevant to question 24, which asked, “What was the cause of the loss of the Titanic, and of the loss of life which thereby ensued or occurred?” Arguably, Lord’s alleged failure to render assistance had added to the loss of life. He was also asked to give evidence about the radio side of the affair and other minor matters. His lawyer, Robertson Dunlop, never intervened to stop Lord answering. Lord thus gave answers that would have been incriminating had he been on trial. Mersey made it clear during later legal discussion that Lord could have refused to answer.
As a result of evidence relating to Californian, question 24 had an extra section added. “(b) What vessels had the opportunity of rendering assistance to the Titanic and, if any, how was it that assistance did not reach the Titanic before the S.S. Carpathia arrived?” Mersey concluded that Lord had failed to render assistance when in a position to do so and greatly exaggerated the help he might have given, as we know.
Consideration was given to prosecuting Lord under the Maritime Conventions Act of 1911 or the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894. I know of no thought being given to prosecuting Herbert Stone. Opinion within the Board of Trade was divided. The Nautical Adviser, Captain Young, favoured prosecution but the lawyers advised against it. One considered a conviction was unlikely on the evidence. It was also considered that Lord could not receive a fair trial in view of the evidence given publicly in both inquiries. Some felt that he had been punished enough by the bad publicity he received. My personal opinion is that there was a feeling that enough bad British seamanship had been advertised already and it was time to quieten things down. The President of the Board of Trade therefore decided not to prosecute. (The President was the political head of the Board of Trade and sat in Parliament, a point not always understood).
Lord was therefore left in a position where he had a very public black mark against him but he could not get his “day in court”. He could not appeal against a conviction that he did not have. Such a position is not unique. In a recent local case a known criminal was stated by the Coroner to be very probably the murderer of the deceased but the police were not able to assemble enough evidence to prosecute successfully. (They got him on other charges and he’s in jail). After some attempts to reopen the case and a particularly scurrilous attack on Captain Moore of Mount Temple, Lord let the matter drop until after the production of the film A Night to Remember but did not succeed in having his case reopened during his lifetime.
The point to note about Lord’s defence of his inaction is that he did not plead that he did not take action because it would endanger his ship. His story was always that no distress signals were seen. Therefore none were mentioned in the log and no action was required. He admitted to being told of one rocket, which did not in itself constitute a distress signal. He put the blame on Stone, who would have told him if distress signals were seen. He denied hearing from Stone about the other rockets and denied hearing from Gibson, except for hearing him open and close the chartroom door. He said that had he known of the emergency he would have attempted to assist, though it would have been dangerous.
The reasons for Lord’s defence are pure speculation. Was he really so tired that the messages from Stone via voice pipe failed to register, even though he had to get up from the chartroom settee and go to his cabin to answer them? Did Gibson’s message also fail to register? Or did Lord realise after the event that he had been told of distress signals and had not attempted to assist when in a position to do, for reasons known only to himself? (Incomprehension? Caution? Timidity?) Surely he realised by the afternoon of April 15th that he had been on the same side of the icefield as Titanic and could have cleared the ice by steering east then heading cautiously south. If that came out in court his position would be bad. He may therefore have decided to devise a story in which he did not know that assistance was needed. That might have seemed safer than claiming that he could not safely do what Captain Rostron had so boldly done.
