I appreciate this explanation, and I think there is much force in it. At the same time, it seems to me that it does not justify the delay. Even taking all these matters into consideration, it can not be that the provision for boat accommodation made in 1894 for vessels of 10,000 tons and upward remained sufficient to 1910, when vessels of 45,000 tons were being built. Two considerations demonstrate this. The first is that some shipowners recognized the insufficiency of the requirements of the board of trade, and voluntarily exceeded those requirements by providing larger boat accommodation than the old rules and table exacted. The second is that shortly before Sir Alfred Chalmers left the board of trade, the board had begun to direct attention to the amending of their rules in this connection. It appears that in November, 1910, a question was asked in the House of Commons as to whether the attention of the president of the board of trade had been called to the fact that the _Olympic_, a sister ship of the _Titanic_, was provided with 14 lifeboats only. The answer given was that the _Olympic_ (which was then in course of construction) would carry 14 lifeboats and two ordinary boats of an aggregate capacity of 9,752 cubic feet, which was in excess of the requirements of the statutory rules. On February 15, 1911, a further question was asked as to the date of the last regulations, and whether, having regard to the increased tonnage of modern ships, the desirability of revising the regulations would be considered by the board of trade. The answer by the president was: Those regulations were last revised in 1894. The question of their further revision is engaging the serious attention of the board of trade, and I have decided to refer the matter to the merchant shipping advisory committee for consideration and advice. Three days afterwards, namely, on February 18, 1911, a circular letter was sent out by the board of trade to the board's principal officers at Liverpool, London, and Glasgow asking each of those gentlemen to draft such an extension of the existing boat scale as he might think satisfactory and reasonable for the conditions of large passenger steamers. This circular letter was answered by the principal officer in Glasgow (Mr. Harris) on February 24, 1911, by the principal officer in London (Mr. Park) on February 27, 1911, and by the principal officer in Liverpool (Mr. Young) on March 3, 1911. It is sufficient to say of these answers that they all suggested a large extension of the statutory requirements.