ON THE MEASUREMENT OF SHIPS FOR TONNAGE. 67 
Thinks there ought to be a limit to the amount of lading. 
States that he has established a rule, by which to establish the position of 
* the light and load line, suited to the varying dimensions of different ships. 
He gives the plan of his rule. 
Mr. Lawrie does not think that any restriction should be laid on the 
draught of water in a ship, but that it should be left in the hands of the 
insurers. Thinks a radical change should be made in the mode of measuring 
engine-power. 
' Mr. Schoneijder finds that he has been foiled in his search for knowledge 
in England, as regards the size and tonnage of ships, as well as their engine- 
power; the present system of registration giving him no information on this 
important subject. 
Mr. Miller thinks that the present rule (Sterling’s) is sufficient for all 
purposes of measurement, and gives correct data for whatever measurements 
may be required ; yet he considers that, in addition to the same, there should 
be supplied a correct scale of displacement; also the proper position of the 
centre of gravity of displacement; centre of effort of sails, and the length of 
the meta-centre, or centre of stability ;—thereby determining the ship’s 
proper trim. 
Does not think it equitable or advisable to make a discriminative distine- 
tion (to the extent given by the present law) between sailing ships and 
steamers. 
Thinks it desirable that some definite system be adopted that might deter- 
mine the actual working-power of steam-engines for marine purposes. 
Mr. Baxter writes on the loss of ships at sea, and thinks that the capability 
of a ship to convey a cargo safely through the sea is in no way defined, or 
capable of being judged of, by the present system of tonnage. 
Mr. Henry Wright states that, in 1839, before a Committee of Inquiry into 
the cause of the Wrecks of Timber Ships, it was found that in 1836—7-8, out of 
5497 vessels which cleared from British North America, there was an aggre- 
gate loss of 226, or 4°164 per cent. by wreck, of which upwards of 150 were 
at sea, the remainder being wrecked on shore. It was remarked that there 
were lost as many good as bad ships, showing that the frailty of the vessels 
was not the sole cause, but owing to improper over-stowage. The result 
was “interference,” and the loss was reduced one-half. 
Mr. Wright demonstrates the weakness of the present law to prove the 
overloading of a ship, and that insurance offers no safeguard whatever. 
Mr. George Rennie states that he agrees generally in the views of Mr, 
Atherton. 
Your Committee, having duly weighed the character of the evidence, and 
the opinions given therein, are of opinion,—1st, That the present method of 
measuring and registering the tonnage of shipping, gives a very close 
_ approximation to the internal capacity of a ship; but that it gives no mea- 
sure of the power of a ship to carry weight. 
2ndly. Engine Power (Horse-power), though an item of registration, yet 
has no practically definite or legalized signification, as a measure of marine- 
engine capability for working power; no unit of power is given, and there 
are no registered data by which the working capability of an engine can be 
_ approximately ascertained. 
Your Committee differ in opinion as to the capability of ships for carrying 
weight being made an item of registration, but if one denomination of 
tonnage only is to be recognized, concur in the opinion that “tonnage” 
‘(though a misnomer as applied to space) should be continued, as under the 
present law, to be based on the internal roomage of ships. Consider it 
F2 
