66 sooo so  REPORT—=185% 
Mr. Mansel considers that the registration of the carrying capability of a 
vessel should be viewed in reference to weight alone, and is strictly propor- 
tional to her external volume between the load and light-draught wathpeliiees, 
but has no definite relation to the capacity inside of the inner lining. 
Considers that, at the commencement, the desire to foster the growth of 
steam-shipping led to the adoption of a discriminating tonnage, to an extent 
injurious towards sailing vessels, and erroneous in principle. 
Considers that the capacity sacrificed to fuel alone ought to have been 
exempted from dues. 
Thinks that the difference between the displacement at the /ight-draught 
and the displacement at the /oad-draught, would be the weight-carrying 
capability of the ship for cargo and stores, in the case of a sailing vessel, and 
for cargo, fuel, and stores, in the case of a steam-ship; and that it is impe- 
rative that this difference should be registered, even though 7 might not be 
taken as the basis for levying dues. 
Considers that the present law for measuring ships is objectionable, inas- 
much that it does not directly imply the external volume of the vessel upon 
which the carrying capability, cost of construction, and propulsion, directly 
depend. Also, supposing equal strength, it is our interest that the difference 
between the external and internal volume shall be a minimum. At present, 
with equal displacement, the vessel with this difference greatest pays least 
dues, and thus an indirect premium is given to the worst ship. Again, the 
method of allowing engine deduction is still more objectionable, for if we 
fill a certain portion of the internal volume with an inefficient mechanism, 
we get the same deduction from gross tonnage, as if the same portion of 
the same vessel had been filled with the most perfect mechanism, working 
up to a much greater power, to the disadvantage of the better mechanised 
ship. 
Considers that nominal horse-power implies a certain area of piston moving 
through a certain space, &e. Indicated horse-power has no very definite 
relation to the above. ‘The first represents more nearly the commercial 
value of the material and workmanship; the second, the evaporative power 
of boiler, fuel, and cost of working, &c. 
Thinks that the simplest divisor for indicating horse-power, in foot lbs. 
per minute, should be 100,000. Sees no objection to retaining the old and 
well-known unit of 33,000 foot Ibs. per minute equal to one-horse power, 
and thinks it absolutely essential that both nominal horse-power and indi- 
cated horse-power should be defined and recognized by legal enactment, 
and form part of the registered elements of ‘ships—the first, or engine 
register of nominal horse-power, being essential for the valuation of the 
engine, and the second, or indicated power, for the working expenses of the 
engine. 
Mr. Greenhow thinks it would be of great value to acquire a true estimate 
of the capability for carrying weight of cargo, and advances his reasons for 
so thinking :— 
Scientifically—The register ought to be a decided gauge, by which to 
ascertain her capability for carrying weight of cargo. 
Statistically.—The returns of tonnage now published afford no criterion 
by which to judge of the amount of produce conveyed. 
Considers that the present system of tonnage measurement, as prescribed 
by the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, gives very incorrectly “the internal. 
é - ” 
roomage of ships. 
Sees no difficulty in a change towards truth, in re-arranging the tonnage’ 
dues, by which no greater amount will be paid by the shipowner. 
