586 
NATURE 
[April 20, 1882 
Mr. White, in his paper, reviews the whole question 
historically. He begins by propounding the question, 
should zztevnal capacity be still retained as the basis of 
measurement, regard being had to the present conditions 
of trade and shipping? He shows that some of the 
earliest tonnage laws on record had this basis, such for 
instance as the French Ordonnance de la Marine of 1681, 
and the English law of 1720. The vessels to which these 
laws applied were mostly engaged in the wine and spirit 
trade, and the measure of 42 cubic feet to the ton, which 
was the basis of the law of 1681, very approximately ex- 
pressed the dead-weight capability of the ship as well ; 
for 42 cubic feet were allowed for stowing four bariques of 
wine, which weighed approximately one ton. Thus the 
vessels measured by this rule were enabled very approxi- 
mately to carry as many 20 cwt. tons as they contained 
tons of cubic capacity. The principle of measurement by 
internal capacity, as now accepted, was not adopted till 
the year 1833. In 1836 the New Measurement Law, pro- 
ceeding on these lines, was passed, and in 1854 came the 
more perfect Merchant Shipping Act of Moorsom. In 
framing this law, two fundamental conditions were ac- 
cepted :— 
First, that the taxable tonnage of a ship should be repre- 
sented by her freight-earning power. 
Second, that the space available for the conveyance of 
passengers and cargo should be taken as the measure of 
freight-earning power. 
The great question of the moment is, whether the 
changes in the construction and propulsion of ships made 
since 1854 have not necessitated some modification of the 
doctrine that internal capacity is the fairest measure of 
the possible earnings of most ships. Mr. White thinks 
that this is scarcely a matter for argument, it being gene- 
rally admitted that in the great majority of ships of the 
present time, the limit of freight-earning is the dead- 
weight capability. He points to the awning deck class as 
a case in point. “It undoubtedly has much to recom- 
mend it as regards safety and good behaviour; yet it 
appears that the internal capacity is so great in proportion 
to the carrying-power, that the whole available space can 
never be utilised, even when the lightest cargoes are 
carried.” 
In support of this view Mr. Waymouth stated that the 
“aim of the ordinary ship-owner is to have a vessel 
which will carry as many 20 cwt. tons upon as few 100 
cubic feet tons (on which he pays his tonnage dues) as he 
possibly can.” It is, as Mr. White points out, perfectly 
obvious that the number of 20 cwt. tons in a given ship 
depends upon the load-line, and that consequently there 
is a close connection between tonnage legislation and 
load-line rules, so much so, that contrary to the opinion 
of the majority of the Commission, the two questions 
should be considered together. 
The majority of the members of the Royal Commission 
were averse to any change in the present principle of 
measurement by internal capacity, for reasons which are 
stated at length in their report, and which are nearly all 
founded upon the inconvenience which would result from 
any change to foreign countries which have copied our 
Tonnage Laws, and to the various port and dock authori- 
ties throughout the world. Though averse to any change 
in principle, they yet recommended certain amendments 
to the existing law, which related chiefly to the deductions 
which should be allowed from the gross tonnage, and also 
as to the mode of measuring the tonnage of iron ships, 
particularly of those having cellular double bottoms. 
Regarding the deductions from gross tonnage, it is to be 
noted that no provision has been made for the case of 
awning-decked vessels. Also the Committee was of 
opinion “that the exemption of any closed-in space from 
measurement into tonnage, as an inducement to owners 
to increase the safety of ships is unsound in principle, 
and if adopted would have to be followed by new restric- 
tions. upon which fresh complaints would be founded.” 
This is an alternative which in our opinion is preferable 
to continuing regulations which admittedly discourage the 
building of safe types of ships. 
The proposals of the Commission as to the measure- 
ment of the tonnage space of cellular double-bottomed 
ships appears to us to err in the same direction. If their 
recommendation were carried out, part of the space 
between the double bottoms would actually be included 
in the space available for tonnage measurement. Now it 
is absolutely impossible to carry freight between the 
double bottoms, and on the other hand, vessels built on 
this system are the strongest afloat; consequently the 
recommendation is not only a violation of the principle of 
the Act of 1854, but also unfairly handicaps this excellent 
type of ship. 
It will thus be seen that the majority of the Royal 
Commission recommend that things should be left as they 
are, subject to certain amendments in detail, some of 
which latter appear to be wrong in principle, and are 
moreover unpopular with both builders and owners. 
The alternative proposal made by Mr. Waymouth was 
that dead-weight capacity should be adopted as the basis 
of measurement, His proposals are summarised in the 
following words :— 
“T propose that the total dead-weight carrying capability 
of a vessel should be ascertained, and also the line to 
which she is immersed when equipped ready for sea, 
without cargo on board. In the case of a sailing vessel 
there should be no consumable stores on board, and simi- 
larly in a steam vessel, the engines should be complete, 
and the boilers full of water, but there should be no coals 
on board. Under these conditions it is considered that 
steamers would be in a relatively fair position, one against 
another, and also in relation to sailing vessels. 
“ The dead-weight required to immerse a vessel from the 
light line to a maximum load line fixed by authority, 
would denote her utmost carrying capability (in tons of 
20 cwt.), compatible with safety in ordinary circum- 
stances. 
“There is a growing disposition, on the part of ship- 
owners, to regard with favour the fixing of such load line, 
provided that the authority on whom the duty would 
devolve be so constituted as to inspire confidence in its 
decisions.”’ 
Mr. Waymouth’s proposal would, if adopted at once get 
rid of an enormous mass of difficulties. On the other 
hand, the fixing of a load-line would be certain to give 
rise to numerous disputes, and moreover, though doubt- 
less applicable to the majority of merchant steamers, 
the dead-weight system would not apply to passenger 
steamers. 
Mr. Rothery’s proposal was of quite a different nature. 
It is at least open to doubt if the principle of the Act of 
1854, viz. that the freight-earning capability of the vessel 
should be the basis on which to assess her taxable ton- 
nage, is correct. It is not by any means clear that there 
should be any connection whatever between the two. 
There is another principle which has much to commend 
it from the common-sense point of view, viz. that the 
service rendered to the vessel by the institution to which 
she has to pay, should be the basis on which to calculate 
the payment. This is the view adopted by Mr. Rothery 
in his report. Now, in the case of a dock or port, the 
service rendered to a vessel for accommodation is propor- 
tional to the space which she occupies in the water, and 
to the length of time which she occupies it. The exact 
space occupied by a vessel in the water is proportional 
to her displacement, and hence Mr. Rothery proposes to 
adopt the system of displacement tonnage. 
Mr. White does not enunciate any views of his own as 
to the best basis on which to assess the dues, in the event 
of a revision of the present law. It is not, however, 
difficult to perceive that he favours the principle of 
