why isn't the board of trade blamed tha much or the lifeboats in popular culture?

Aurélien WOLFF

Aurélien WOLFF

Member
I noticed in titanic movies, ismay would be the one blamed for the lack of lifeboat while not taking the board of trade in account or that the davits were designated to cope in case the laws were changed by adding more lifeboat. I wonder why the board of trade part isn't mentionned as much there.
 
Aurélien WOLFF said:
... ismay would be the one blamed for the lack of lifeboat while not taking the board of trade in account ...
Click to expand...
I think the main reason is simply that most people get much more satisfaction from blaming individual 'villains' rather than faceless corporate bodies.

The Board of Trade thinking on the matter was, I suspect, a good deal more complicated than most accounts suggest. I have been doing some background reading of old parliamentary questions and debates relating to the BoT regulations and I get the impression that they had been deliberately allowing the lifeboat requirements to lapse in order to gain more support for improved compartmentalisation. Their political calculation was that they wouldn't get simultaneous parliamentary support for both and I suspect, given the domination of the House of Commons by business interest in that era, that they were probably correct.
 
The Marine Safety Act's Life-Saving Appliances Committee first met on 19th November 1888 and was top-heavy with ship-owners and ship-builders and its Chairman was Thomas Henry Ismay, father of the better known J. Bruce Ismay. The few members who spoke for the sailors wanted lifeboats for all but the ship owners/builders judged that policy to be "totally impracticable and harmful to safety at sea" (Sir Francis Dunlop, ship owner and friend of Ismay). As mentioned in the previous reply to the question, the builders felt that perfecting the watertight compartments method would make the use of lifeboats unnecessary as the ship itself would be its own lifeboat. This and more about lifeboats is covered in Chapter 2 of the book 'Dundee Man Lost at Sea - the links between RMS Titanic and the city of Dundee.
 
derek byrne said:
The few members who spoke for the sailors wanted lifeboats for all but the ship owners/builders judged that policy to be "totally impracticable and harmful to safety at sea"
Click to expand...


They may not have been entirely wrong. Every sailor knows that the safest possible course is to remain with the ship for as long as possible. Taking to the boats with no possible rescue in sight was the absolute last resort and came with the risk of being lost at sea. This was what happened to the crew of the Mary Celeste.

There were also topweight issues to consider as well as having the upper works so cluttered that the extra boats would get in the way.
 
Here is an excerpt from one of the parliamentary exchanges I mentioned above to give you a flavour of the contemporary political discussions. This is from the Hansard record for 26th February 1895.

*SIR J. LENG
(Dundee)

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that oceangoing steamers now frequently carry upwards of 1,000 souls on board as passengers, crew, and attendants, he will consider the propriety of the Board obtaining statutory powers to require compliance with the recommendations of the Bulk-heads Committee, 1891, in, the building of all such vessels in the United Kingdom, so as to make them practically unsinkable?

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE
(Mr. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.)

The Statutory Committee on Life-saving Appliances advised that a reduction in the amount of such appliances should be allowed in respect of vessels which were divided into efficient watertight compartments. In consequence of the Report of this Statutory Committee the Bulk heads Committee of 1891 were appointed to advise as to what were efficient watertight compartments, and upon their valuable Report the Board of Trade have acted in granting the reduction of life-saving appliances suggested by the Statutory Committee. Neither that Committee, however, nor the Bulkheads Committee recommended—as indeed they had no power to recommend—that the provision of such compartments should be made compulsory. The question of making such provision compulsory is a very serious one, and I apprehend that much resistance would be offered to a legislative proposal to that effect.

*SIR E. HARLAND
(Belfast, N.)

asked whether it was not a fact that a great many of the recently built oceangoing steamers had availed themselves voluntarily and to the full of the recommendation of the Bulkhead Committee?

MR. BRYCE

A good many have certainly done so. I should hardly say what proportion, but a good many, I know, have done so.

Sir E. Harland is, of course, the owner of Harland & Wolff. Many shipbuilders and shipowners were also Members of Parliament.

Note also that the term "practically unsinkable" is used by Sir John Leng in connection with watertight compartmentalisation 17 years before the Titanic sinking. It wasn't, as popularly believed, something invented in relation to the Olympic class.
 
IIRC, the Board of Trade conducted the first hearing in the UK. Would they (really) blame themselves? And then, once the precedence is set, it pretty much ensures their immunity.
 
Richard C Elliott said:
I think the main reason is simply that most people get much more satisfaction from blaming individual 'villains' rather than faceless corporate bodies.

.... I get the impression that they had been deliberately allowing the lifeboat requirements to lapse in order to gain more support for improved compartmentalisation....
Click to expand...
I like where you are going with this thought, well done research & conclusions on your part!
To expand on what you wrote, research I have read, and buy into, is that compartmentalisation (of which Titanic had 16 I believe) was an advancement in which the roles of lifeboats would be looked at in a different way thanks to this technology. The thought is that watertight compartments (compartmentalisation) would keep the ship afloat, and lifeboats would thus be utilized to ferry passengers from the stranded ship to the rescue ship(s), then returned back to the stranded ship to board more passengers again, until all were rescued! Of course, Titanic came very close to proving this would work. If it were not for the excessive number of breached bulkheads, Titanic would have stayed afloat, and lifeboat shuttles from Titanic to Carpathia would have worked!
 
Whenever I think of the call for lifeboats for all, I ask why do these same people not ask for parachute escape pods on airliners? The airplane itself is built with a number of redundancies should some single point of failure occur. Tremendous advances in airline safety have been made over the years, yet should an airplane be involved in an accident while in flight, the odds of survival are not very good. In the case of a ship involved in an accident, the survival rate is quite high, not because of the number of lifeboats, but because ships are designed to stay afloat for long periods time should an accident take place.
 
Richard C Elliott said:
I think the main reason is simply that most people get much more satisfaction from blaming individual 'villains' rather than faceless corporate bodies.

The Board of Trade thinking on the matter was, I suspect, a good deal more complicated than most accounts suggest. I have been doing some background reading of old parliamentary questions and debates relating to the BoT regulations and I get the impression that they had been deliberately allowing the lifeboat requirements to lapse in order to gain more support for improved compartmentalisation. Their political calculation was that they wouldn't get simultaneous parliamentary support for both and I suspect, given the domination of the House of Commons by business interest in that era, that they were probably correct.
Click to expand...
Fascinating! I had never considered the compartmentalization versus lifeboat tradeoff!
 
Back
Top