British Wreck Commissioner's inquiry into the sinking of the Titanic

Its recommendations, along with those of the earlier United States Senate inquiry that had taken place in the month after the sinking, led to changes in safety practices following the disaster.

The sinking of the RMS Titanic, a trans-Atlantic passenger liner operated by White Star Line, occurred in the early hours of 15 April 1912 while the ship was on its maiden voyage from Southampton, UK, to New York, United States.

There was initially some confusion in both the United States and the UK over the extent of the disaster, with some newspapers at first reporting that the ship and the passengers and crew were safe.

[3] The Attorney General for England and Wales, Sir Rufus Isaacs, gave the commission a list of 26 questions concerning issues such as Titanic's construction, how she had been navigated and the ice warnings received prior to the collision with the iceberg.

A further question was added after the inquiry began concerning the role played by SS Californian, which had been in the vicinity of Titanic but had not rendered assistance to the sinking ship.

Other counsel (several of whom were also Members of Parliament) included Hamar Greenwood and Henry Duke, the solicitor general John Simon (also representing the Board of Trade), the prime minister's son Raymond Asquith, Sidney Rowlatt, and Edward Maurice Hill.

[20] Others called to give testimony included Harold Arthur Sanderson, UK Vice President of International Mercantile Marine Co., the shipping consortium headed by J. P. Morgan that controlled White Star Line.

[21] White Star Line officials that testified included J. Bruce Ismay (Chairman and Managing Director)[22] and Charles Alfred Bartlett (Marine Superintendent).

The failure of Californian to go to the rescue of the sinking Titanic, which had been disclosed by the American inquiry, was already controversial and became even more so with the testimony of Captain Lord and his officers.

[10] Although Lord appeared only as a witness and was not accused of wrongdoing,[5] as one historian of the Titanic disaster has put it, "the image created in the mind of the public ever since has been of the Californian's officers standing idly on the bridge, so thoroughly intimidated by their captain that they would rather watch another ship sink than run the risk of facing his wrath.

"[10] The testimony of the Duff Gordons, who had been accused of misconduct for their actions in leaving Titanic aboard a lifeboat with 40 seats but only 12 passengers, attracted the largest crowds of the inquiry.

[28] It has been theorised by a modern-day historian (2016) that the fire damaged the structural integrity of two bulkheads and the hull; this combined with the speed of the vessel have been given as contributing reasons for the disaster.

The Board of Trade was criticised for its inadequate regulations, notably the failure to ensure that enough lifeboats were provided and that crews were given proper training in their use.

[34] In contrast to the American inquiry, the Mersey report did not condemn the failures of the Board of Trade, the White Star Line or Titanic's captain, Edward Smith.

"[35] The report's recommendations, along with those of the earlier United States Senate inquiry that had taken place in the month after the sinking, led to changes in safety practices.

"[36] The Daily Mail opined that it was "difficult to suppose that any court which had to inquire into the responsibility of the owners of the ship would disregard the expression of opinion of Lord Mersey and those who sat with him ...

"[37] Titanic historian Donald Lynch notes the consequences: "Apart from protecting itself, the [Board of Trade] had no interest in seeing the White Star Line found negligent.

As Barczewski puts it, it "bristles with criticisms of established seafaring traditions and of the conduct of the Titanic's builders, owners, officers and crew", and conveys "righteous indignation" and a "passion to right the wrongs" done to the victims of the disaster and to prevent any recurrence.

The American report castigated the arrogance and complacency that had led to the disaster and held Captain Smith, the shipping industry and the Board of Trade culpable for their failures.