G.—ENGINEERING. 131 
their ideas of what the criterion should be, while Lloyd’s Registry published 
rules in the early ’eighties, but there were no legal rules. In 1884 the 
Government appointed a Committee, the parent of many others, on which 
were representatives of the Board of Trade, Lloyd’s and the Liverpool 
Registries, and others, with Sir Edward Reed as Chairman. Sir Dighy 
Murray, Mr. Benjamin Martell, Mr. West, and Mr. Wm. Denny were very 
active members. The Board of Trade proposed height of platform as the 
_ criterion, while Lloyd’s pinned their faith to surplus buoyancy ; the latter 
_was ultimately adopted, though, curiously enough, the former is now 
recognised as the more important factor. 
On the eve of the publication of the report it was announced that 
Lloyd’s had absorbed the ‘ Red Book,’ and so the standard of strength, 
which the Committee had decided to combine with draught of water, 
_ Was recommended to be Lloyd 1885 rules. When the Government accepted 
_ the report and passed the Load Line Act in 1890, the Board of Trade 
was made responsible for its application, Lloyd’s was named as an 
assigning body, and any other similar body approved by the Board might 
be similarly appointed, and the Board was to consult such assigning bodies 
before making any modification in the rules which experience might 
suggest. Certain shipowners and shipbuilders, having an objection to a 
practical monopoly in the fixing of scantlings and freeboards, founded in 
1891 the British Corporation Registry, with head office in Glasgow, which 
_ Was recognised by the Board under the Act, but only on condition that 
_tules for scantlings and a registry book were produced, and finally that the 
controlling committee was so constituted as to ensure the influence not 
only of shipowners, but also of shipbuilders, marine engineers, and under- 
writers. That Registry has had a profound influence for good, and the 
question of strength was fully assured, as a standard for that was. laid 
down. The virility of the younger society, with its modern ideas and its 
constant endeavour to simplify the construction while maintaining the 
strength of its vessels, reacted on the older society with all its accumulated 
experience, and these two, in consultation with the Board of Trade, have 
done much useful work in standardising, while not fossilising, practice 
hrough research. . 
And this leads me to speak of Standardisation in Shipbuilding and 
Engineering, which Mr. Le Maistre, Secretary of the British Engineering 
Standards Association, will deal with at greater length. You are all 
iware of the attempts to standardise the design of ships and their machinery 
‘uring the War. In my opinion, that was not the wisest proceeding ; in 
ny case, I do not believe that standard designs such as were carried out 
t that time are suited for peace times. But, if we are to maintain our 
ational supremacy, I am a firm believer in standardising details in ships 
nd machinery. The first work of the B.E.S.A., when it was established in 
901, was the standardising of ships’ sectional material. Order was thus 
rought out of chaos, the number of standards, sections of all kinds and 
izes, was fixed at 175, and the steelmakers reported that a saving of at 
feast 5s. per ton was the result. A revision in 1918 reduced the standard 
etions to 115. A recent piece of work of the B.E.S.A. is the standardising 
of the tail-shafts of ordinary cargo-vessels, which standards may also be 
applicable to many passenger-ships. The taper of the shaft to take the 
propeller boss is also fixed. It can easily be seen what a saving this would 
K 2 
