NA TURE 



[May 4, 1882 



freedom allowed them in illustrating their views. If no 

 other purpose had been served, the inquiry would have 

 been justified by the very valuable summary of facts and 

 opinions which it has been the means of putting on 

 record. All that it is necessary to read for the full under- 

 standing of the past history of British tonnage laws can 

 be found in the Minutes of Evidence or the Appendices ; 

 and much valuable information respecting foreign tonnage 

 laws can also be found therein. Valuable as this feature 

 of the work may be, however, it does not represent the 

 purpose for which the Commission was primarily ap- 

 pointed, and when one turns to that aspect of the subject 

 the results are not nearly so satisfactory. 



In Nature, vol. xxv. pp. 585-7, it was stated that the 

 Commission did not make a unanimous Report. Three 

 of its members dissented from the majority, and each of 

 them produced a separate Report. This is not a matter 

 for surprise ; in fact it would not have been surprising 

 had the Commission simply followed the precedent of the 

 Parliamentary Committee of 1S74, and submitted the 

 evidence without making a Report. The majority con- 

 sisted of nine gentlemen whose opinions are entitled to 

 the greatest respect, including shipowners, shipbuilders, 

 dock-proprietors, and representatives of the Board of 

 Trade. As explained in vol. xxv. pp. 585-7, they recom- 

 mend the retention of the principle of the existing law — 

 viz. measurement of internal capacity — but propose certain 

 amendments in detail. Some of these amendments are 

 reasonable enough, but others arc of questionable cha- 

 racter ; it is, however, of greater importance for our 

 present purpose to consider whether the arguments 

 advanced against a change in the principle of measure- 

 ment are sufficiently weighty to prevent any change. Of 

 all these arguments the most important are those relating 

 to international obligation and convenience. Bearing in 

 mind what was said above respecting the action of this 

 country in leading up to a system of international tonnage, 

 on the basis of internal measurement, it will be seen that 

 an abandonment of that basis ought not to be lightly 

 undertaken. But this fact need not bar the inquiry as to 

 the advantages to be gained by such a change ; for 

 obviously the most thorough and exhaustive investigation 

 would be needed, on other grounds, before the change 

 could be made. And if after due investigation British 

 shipowners were convinced that the change was desirable, 

 the evidence which would convince them could scarcely 

 fail to induce foreign maritime nations to follow our lead. 

 The matter might well form the subject of an Interna- 

 tional Conference before final action was taken ; much as 

 was done in 1873 when the Suez Canal Regulations were 

 framed. 



Turning to the other side much more forcible argu- 

 ments can be urged against a continuance of the present 

 system. Moorsom took great pains to explain his reasons 

 for using internal capacity as the basis of tonnage mea- 

 surement ; these may be summed up in the statement 

 that internal capacity was the fairest measure of the pos- 

 sible earnings of most ships. This was probably the case 

 in 1854 ; but is no longer true. In most ships the limit 

 of freight-earning is now found in their "dead-weight 

 capability " ; that is to say, the prevalent cargoes of com- 

 merce do not now fill the whole space, when the weight 

 taken on board has reached the limit of draught which 



can be accepted with a due regard to the safety of the 

 ships. This is not true of all ships, but of mobt. Pas- 

 senger ships, for instance, do not come under this con- 

 dition ; in them space is of the greatest value. Other 

 types of ships, always engaged in carrying light cargoes 

 still come under the condition which in 1S54 was thought 

 to be nearly universal. Still these cases are now the 

 minority ; and in the majority dead weight capability is 

 the more important condition. This being so it is 00- 

 viously unfair to assess the tonnage of all ships on the 

 basis of internal capacity. In certain special classes, 

 such as the " awning decked " class, it is alleged that the 

 whole space available can never be filled with cargo ; and 

 on these classes the existing law bears heavily, although 

 they are acknowledged to be eminently safe and sea- 

 worthy. 



On other grounds the retention of internal capacity as 

 the basis for tonnage is to be deprecated. Even with tV 

 amendments suggested in the Report of the Majority 

 there can be no hope that the disputes hitherto so fre- 

 quent will cease, when a decision has to be arrived at 

 respecting the spaces to be included in or excluded 

 from the gross tonnage ; and the deductions to be made 

 therefrom in estimating the register tonnage. The 

 Majority evidently realise this difficulty and attempt to 

 meet it by more precise definitions ; but the ingen u |ty 

 which has been displayed in dealing with the phraseology 

 of the Act of 1854 is not likely to fail in finding loopholes 

 in the barriers now proposed. Nor can it be admitted 

 that some of the proposals of the Majority are fair or 

 foreseeing, having regard to the obvious tendencies and 

 the possibilities of progress in shipbuilding and engineer- 

 ing. Into this discussion, however, it is not possible to 

 enter here. 



The three dissentient Reports contain much sharper 

 criticism of the Majority Report than appears in the fore- 

 going remarks. Exception has been taken to the tone of 

 these Reports by some members of the Majority, but 

 apparently not with much justice. Mr. Glover represents 

 the shipowners who desire to be "let alone," and think 

 the present Tonnage Law needs little or no change. Mr. 

 Waymouth, accepting the view that " dead-weight capa- 

 bility " now rules the freight-earning of most ships, pro- 

 poses to make dead-weight capability the basis of ton- 

 nage. Mr. Rothery advocates the " displacement," or total 

 weight of the laden ship, as the fairest basis. Respecting 

 Mr. Glover's views nothing need be said additional to 

 what has already been stated respecting the working of 

 the present system; but it is desirable to glance at the 

 other proposals. 



Mr. Waymouth has revived the oldest system of ton- 

 nage. " Keels" and other coal vessels were so measured 

 time out of mind ; and various empirical rules were framed 

 for the " dead-weight capability " of other classes of ships. 

 Being empirical they were easily evaded ; Mr. Waymouth 

 favours a well-known system of measurement, which 

 takes account of the true form of the ship and renders 

 evasion impossible. His system demands a fixed load- 

 line ; this is one of its difficulties. In order to overcome 

 this objection to his scheme Mr. Waymouth favours the 

 appointment of some central authority by which the load- 

 line will be fixed. It is known that the Bo.ir 1 of Trade 

 is now taking preliminary action and ascertaining the 



