A WEEKLY ILLUSTRATED JOURNAL OF SCIENCE 



" To t/i; solid ground 

 Oj Nature trusts the mind which builds for aye."— WORDSWORTH 



THURSDAY, MAY 4, 18S2 



TONNAGE LEGISLATION 



WHEN it was announced, towards the close of the 

 year 18S0, that a Royal Commission had been 

 appointed to consider the operation of the Tonnage Law, 

 the action taken by the Government occasioned no 

 surprise amongst persons interested in shipping. Dis- 

 putes and differences of opinion, between the officials of 

 the Board of Trade on the one side, and shipbuilders or 

 shipowners on the other, had been growing more and 

 more frequent in recent years ; the rapid development of 

 shipbuilding and the introduction of new types of ships 

 or new systems of construction making difficult the appli- 

 cation of the Law of 1S54. When that Law was passed 

 its language was clear and unmistakable, strictly applying 

 to the ships then built. Wood still held the first place as 

 the material for construction, and the technical terms 

 used by Moorsom bore special reference to wood ships, 

 although they were not inapplicable to the existing iron 

 ships. Ships were then of moderate size and simple con- 

 struction ; ocean steam-navigation was comparatively in 

 its infancy ; and the marvellous growth in dimensions, 

 speeds, and diversity of type which has taken place in 

 the last quarter of a century could not have been foreseen 

 — much less provided for in framing the Tonnage Law. 

 It will readily be seen, therefore, that controversies of 

 opinion were unavoidable when the Act of 1854 had to be 

 extended to modern steamships, every clause being sub- 

 jected to the closest scrutiny, and a strict legal interpre- 

 tation being given to phrases which were originally clear 

 enough, but of which the modern readings were doubtful 

 or obscure. Shipowners naturally desired to secure the 

 minimum nominal tonnage for their ships, since dues and 

 taxes were assessed thereon ; the Board of Trade sur- 

 veyors, on the other hand, while acting with perfect fair- 

 ness, might be expected to adopt an interpretation of the 

 law which tended towards a tonnage exceeding that 

 admitted by the owner. In some notable instances of 

 recent occurrence the Board of Trade has either had to 

 yield to these claims fjr reduced tonnage-measurement, 

 or has been b aten in an appeal to the Law Courts ; and 

 Vol. xxvi.— No. 653 



it was natural, under these circumstances, that an attempt 

 should be made to secure such an amendment of the Act 

 of 1S54 as was needed to prevent further controversy. 



Nor was this the only rcison for revision. Ever since 

 the present tonnage law has been in force for British 

 ships there has been a tendency on the part of other 

 maritime nations to approximate to our system of mea- 

 surement. The International arrangements made in 

 connection with the Danube navigation and the Suez 

 Canal have been based on the Moorsom system ; and at 

 the present time there is a closer approach to a uniform 

 system of tonnage than has ever been reached before. 

 This desirable result has been produced to a large extent 

 by the action of the Board of Trade, whose successive 

 Acts for the Amendment of the Law of 1854 have been 

 adopted in foreign countries, although they have failed to 

 secure Parliamentary approval at home. Consequently 

 we stand, at present, in the curious position of still having 

 in force the earliest and confessedly imperfect edition of 

 the Moorsom system, whereas English experience and 

 suggestion have given to other countries amended editions. 

 On this ground, therefore, it was desirable to revise the 

 tonnage law, even if the system remained unchanged in 

 principle. 



Further reasons for revision of a more thorough and 

 sweeping kind were not wanting. It was admitted that 

 the Law of 1854 was a great improvement upon its pre- 

 decessors : more scientific in its mode of measurement, 

 and having a sounder basis as applied to the ships built 

 when it was framed, and to the then existing conditions 

 of trade. On the other hand, it was alleged that subse- 

 quent changes in trade and shipping rendered the opera- 

 tion of the Tonnage Law injurious, hampering the skill 

 of the shipbuilder, fostering certain inferior types of ships, 

 and favouring heavy loading. In short, it was asserted 

 that a change of system was needed on the grounds of 

 greater safety to life and property, and greater fairness 

 and freedom as between different types of ships. 



All these reasons for inquiry are recognised in the In- 

 structions issued to the Royal Commission. No one can 

 fairly complain that the field of investigation is unduly 

 limited ; and a perusal of the evidence taken by, or the 

 documents submitted to the Commission, will show that 

 the exponents of every shade of opinion had the greatest 



