1 70 The Tonnage of Ships. 



province to criticise Mr. JafFe's remarks, but from an owner's 

 point of view there is a good deal in what he says. Mr. Connel's 

 remarks were very much to the point. T think with a little 

 further consideration he will probably come nearer a perfect 

 agreement with me. He says that a ship sailing very light 

 would pay little. No doubt that is a slight objection, but a 

 very slight one. T quite agree with him in thinking the Suez 

 Canal system of measurement is a better one than the present 

 net register. Mr. Maxton thought I should have pulled to 

 pieces the Act of Parliament, &c., &c. It is not the details of 

 the Act I consider objectionable, it is the principle on which it 

 is based. He proposes vessels should pay dues in proportion to 

 their length. That proposal has been often made before, and in 

 my opinion rightly abandoned, because it would set a premium 

 on building abnormally full ships, which I consider an evil to 

 be avoided. I jegret that Mr. Jones is still of opinion that 

 internal capacity is the best method of estimating tonnage. If 

 we had sailing vessels only to deal with I might agree with 

 him, but when steamers come in question I must say my 

 opinion is still in favour of displacement. I must admit there 

 is no doubt a displacement tonnage would tend to cramp the 

 engine room space, but I believe any error of that sort would 

 soon correct itself. I was pleased to gather from Mr. Boyd's 

 remarks that he agrees with me fairly well. His suggestion to 

 substitute the word displacement for tonnage is worthy of 

 consideration, but it is the principle I contend for rather than 

 the name. Mr. Boyd showed that he is fully alive to the 

 present absurdities in the methods of measuring ships. I must 

 conclude, thanking the audience for their kind attention. 



