f _~ 7 7 
64 REPORT—1856. 
“ Tons Register,” and the capability for carrying tons weight of cargo; and 
therefore the present official registration does not fulfil the advertising 
requirements of trade. 
Considers that no definition of tonnage, and no mode of determining it, 
can adequately embrace both the capability of a ship for carrying weight and 
its capacity for holding budk. The weight-tonnage and the bulk-tonnage 
must therefore be distinct. 
Considers that, as the present scheme of registration does not set forth 
any of the principal dimensions, as length, breadth, and depth, or the load- 
line-draught, or give the displacement either at light-draught when realy to 
receive cargo, or at the load-draught or submerging-draught, it cannot, on 
any definite principle, constitute the base of scientific inquiry into the com- 
parative displacement and consequent dynamic performances and merits of 
ships, nor a reliable base for statistical inquiry into the imports and exports 
of the country. 
Does not consider that the science of naval architecture would be in- 
terfered with by the constructor’s deep draught of water forward and 
aft, or some regulation limit to be assigned as such, being made an item 
in the official registration of every ship, and duly marked on the ship 
herself. 
Considers that, in forming a rule for placing this mark to regulate the 
freeboard limit, an investigation into existing practice (as to the ratio which 
actually exists between the freeboard and the length, breadth, and depth of the 
Aull) will be the best means of deducing a rule for determining the position 
of the mark in question. Proposes a rule to exemplify this method of deter- 
mining the freeboard limit. 
Considers that, if the registration be based on admeasurements compre- 
hensively adequate for deducing therefrom the weight-tonnage and bulk- 
tonnage, then no occasion will exist for discriminative protection in favour 
of any particular class of vessel, whether sailing-ship or steamer, or descrip- 
tion of material with which a ship may be built, or systems of machinery by 
which ships may be propelled. 
Considers the present registration of engine-power a delusion, because no 
definite measure of power has been assigned, either by the legislature or by 
the practice of trade, to the term “ Nominal Horse-power,” as indicating the 
working-power of marine engines. 
Considers that a legalized unit of horse-power is a requirement only of 
secondary importance to a comprehensive tonnage registration. 
Considers there can be no objection to a system prescribed by law, whereby 
ships are to be measured for tonnage registration, to include their capability 
for carrying weight, in addition to the bulk-tonnage prescribed by the pre- 
sent law, and considers that all official admeasurements should be made on ~ 
one uniform principle, to be sanctioned by scientific authority. Shows that 
weight-tonnage would assimilate closely with metrical tonnage. 
Admits Sterling’s rule, as prescribed for the measurement of ships, by the 
Act of 1854, to be based on strictly scientific principles, but regards its 
practical application as inconvenient, and not self-detective of error, and a 
pirating of the lines of ships. 
Considers Mr. Peake’s system, for various reasons stated, as the best for 
common use in determining cubical admeasurements, whereby the roomage 
and tonnage of a ship may be ascertained and registered, without affording 
data for pirating the constructor’s lines. 
Mr. Henderson states the objects of registering tonnage; gives a table 
that shows the mode that has been in use, ‘and the measurements for ascer- 
ee eee 
