#^»^:^TPt 
 
 
 
 ;^^%i 
 
 '■-m 
 
 
 V^x...^^ 
 
 -i'4,-4::. 
 
 
 
 
zc^^ 
 
 University of California • Berkeley 
 
 Gift of 
 
 GEORGE K. OPPENHEIM 
 
 
^\^S-!^^ 
 
 j}LApj3^::\ 
 
ADDRESS 
 
 ON THE 
 
 CLASSIFICATION OF SHIPPING, 
 
 1JELI\KKKIJ TO THK 
 
 CLYDE SAILING and STEAMSHIP OWNERS' ASSOCIATIONS 
 At GLASGOW, 19TH DECEMBER, 1887. 
 
 NATHANIEL DUNLOP, Esq., in the Chair. 
 
 MR ROBERT DUNCAN, 
 
 SHIPBUILDER, PORT-GLASGOW ; 
 
 REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CLYDE SHIPOWNERS ON THE LOAD LINE 
 
 committee; past president and HON. MEMBER OF COUNCIL 
 
 OF THE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS AND SHIPBUILDERS 
 
 IN SCOTLAND ; MEMBER OF THE INSTITUTION 
 
 OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS, ETC. 
 
 GREENOCK: 
 PRINTED AT THE GREENOCK HERALD OFFICE. 
 
 1887. 
 
ADDRESS 
 
 CLASSIFICATION OF SHIPPING, 
 
 DELIVERED TO THE 
 
 CLYDE SAILING and STEAMSHIP OWNERS' ASSOCIATIONS 
 At GLASGOW, iqth DECEMBER, 1887. 
 
 NATHANIEL DUNLOP, Esq., in the Chair. 
 
 BY 
 
 MR ROBERT DUNCAN, 
 
 SHIPBUILDER, PORT-GLASGOW; 
 
 REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CLYDE SHIPOWNERS ON THE LOAD LINE 
 
 committee; past president and HON. MEMBER OF COUNCIL 
 
 OF THE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS AND SHIPBUILDERS 
 
 IN SCOTLAND ; MEMBER OF THE INSTITUTION 
 
 OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS, ETC. 
 
 GREENOCK : 
 
 PRINTED AT THE GREENOCK HERALD OFFICE. 
 
 1887. 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2007 with funding from 
 
 IVIicrosoft Corporation 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/addressonclassifOOduncrich 
 
ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF SHIPPING. 
 
 HISTORY. 
 
 In the " Annals of Lloyd's Register," published for the information 
 of the subscribers in 1884, — the jubilee year of that Society — we find 
 it stated that "although marine insurance is probably as old as 
 maritime commerce, and classification of some kind coeval with 
 them, the first recorded attempt to establish anything like an organ- 
 ised Registry dates back no further than last century, and may be 
 said to have been initiated by Mr Edward Lloyd, at his coffee-house 
 in Lombard Street, where he first published ' Lloyd's News,' in 
 1696, and in 1726 the world-famous ' Lloyd's Lists,' which continue 
 to this day." 
 
 Those earliest ship lists are said " to contain the germs of the 
 Register of Shipping, which came into existence at some period during 
 last century, and which, besides being the first English Classification 
 Society of which there is any record, is the parent of all other 
 Shipping Registries now in existence." 
 
 It is further stated that "the oldest copy of a Register of Shipping 
 in the library of Lloyd's Register Office, indeed, so far as can be 
 ascertained, the oldest copy of any book of the kind at present in 
 existence, is dated 1764/65/66, and its singed edges bear evidence of 
 having passed through the flames which laid the Royal Exchange, 
 with all Lloyd's records, in ashes in 1838." 
 
 A specimen page of this old volume is given in the " Annals," 
 which shows the information it contains very complete for its time, 
 " an evidence that it was probably not the first of its kind." 
 
 The classes there assigned were designated by the vowels — 
 A, E, I, O, U— which referred to the hulls ; while G, M, B,~the 
 initial letters of " Good," " Middling," and " Bad,"— related to the 
 equipment. 
 
 The next volume in the library is dated 1768/69, and the third is 
 dated 1775/76, and in the latter " for the first time appears the old, 
 familiar class Al." 
 
 "There is a very complete collection of volumes from 1775 on- 
 ward," and the specimen page for 1834, as given in the "Annals," 
 
4 CLASSIFICATION OF SHIPPING. 
 
 the year in which Lloyd's Register Society was re-constituted as it 
 now exists, gives very little more information about the shipping of 
 its day than the records of sixty years before did for the vessels of 
 their time — indeed, not quite so much — for it is interesting to note 
 that in 1775 the " Load Draft" has a column to itself, which seems 
 to have dropped out later on, and is only now beginning to re-appear, 
 more than 100 years after. 
 
 We are told that ''the form and arrangement of the book, as 
 determined in 1834, remained practically unaltered for many years." 
 The steam engine had not yet materially affected merchant shipping, 
 even the size of vessels had not much increased ; the specimen page 
 for 1775 shewing three vessels over 400 tons, while the page for 1834 
 has on\y four over that size. 
 
 "In the volume for 1781-82 the first mention is made of 
 Surveyors, although it is apparent that Surveyors were employed 
 before that date, as indicated by the notes of repairs under the 
 vessels' names in the book." 
 
 "In the volume for 1797-98 the names of Lloyd's Committee 
 appear for the first time," and that committee consisted of eleven 
 members. 
 
 In that year a new style of Classification was introduced that 
 gave great offence to many Shipowners, and led to the starting of a 
 rival Registry in 1799, which was commonly known as the Shipowners' 
 or "Red Book;" the older Registry being known as the Under- 
 writers' or " Green Book." These continued in anything but friendly 
 rivalry till their final amalgamation in 1834, as the reconstituted 
 " Lloyd's Register of British and Foreign Shipping." 
 
 It appears that in the opening year of this century, the two 
 societies bad Surveyors at 24 ports in England, 4 in Ireland, and 2 
 in Scotland — Greenock and Leith being the only ports so honoured. 
 Glasgow was not then of suflficient consequence as a shipping port to 
 have a resident Surveyor. 
 
 Both societies were conducted very much on the same system. 
 Their books were simply records of the date and place of build, the 
 name and tonnage, the masters and owners, the voyage and class of 
 the vessels entered, with indications of repairs ; but by neither society 
 were any fees charged for survey or classification, the whole expense 
 being borne by the subscribers to their respective books. No 
 supervision was exercised over the Shipbuilders or Surveyors. 
 There were no rules for construction, nor for systematic survey, either 
 in building or repairing. Shipbuilders did very much as they pleased 
 as to materials, scantlings, and fastenings ; and the Surveyors reported 
 
CLASSIFICATION OF SHIPPING. 5 
 
 the construction or repairs, and the Class to which they considered 
 the vessels entitled, to their committees, who entered the facts in then 
 Register Books ; and all was well. 
 
 This pleasant state of matters was unhappily too good to last. 
 By 1833 the position of the rival societies " had become so desperate" 
 that they must either amalgamate or collapse. They preferred the 
 former alternative ; and then in 1834, for the first time, began that 
 system of parental authority, which has eventuated in reducing 
 modern shipbuilding to a manufacture, on stereotyped rules and 
 arrangements, over which the Shipbuilder and Shipowner have 
 practically no control. 
 
 Dissatisfaction with the composition of the committee, which 
 consisted entirely of London Underwriters, Merchants, and Ship- 
 owners, early led to demands from the outports for direct representa- 
 tion, and to the establishing in 1838 of a Liverpool Register of 
 Shipping, which was absorbed by Lloyd's Register in 1845 leaving 
 a branch committee in Liverpool that has been in existence ever 
 since. 
 
 In 1844 Lloyd's Register Committee passed a resolution "that 
 the character Al be granted to vessels built of iron, under survey, of 
 good materials and workmanship ; such vessels to be surveyed 
 annually." 
 
 The experience gained in this way, during the next ten years, 
 was held sufficient to justify the Society in issuing its first rules for 
 the construction of iron vessels ; and it is stated that " the earliest 
 suggested rules for iron vessels of which any record exists were 
 received from the Glasgow office of the Society." With but slight 
 alteration these rules were issued in the following year — 1855, the 
 grades of Classification being 1 2, 9, and 6 years. 
 
 From 1845, for nearly twenty years, no change took place in the 
 number or composition of the Committee. Repeated applications 
 from the outports for direct representation received no attention, but 
 in 1862 the starting of the "Liverpool Underwriters' Registry" as 
 an independent Classification Society "for iron vessels only," had the 
 effect of shaking up the Conservatism of the London Register ; and 
 in 1864 Lloyd's Committee was increased by ten additional members. 
 Then, for the first time, by direct representation, 15 members were 
 allotted to the outports, out of a General Committee of 41. 4 members 
 were given to Liverpool and 2 to Glasgow. This had to suffice till 
 1883, when the General Committee was increased to 50 members, by 
 additional representation of the outports. Other 4 members were 
 given to Liverpool, making 8 in all; besides its Branch Committee of 
 
6 CLASSIFICATION OF SHIPPING. 
 
 1 3 members. The power of Liverpool is thus recognised in Lloyd's 
 Registry by 21 representatives. 
 
 At the same time 2 additional members were given to Glasgow, 
 I to Greenock, and i to Leith, Dundee, and Aberdeen as one 
 district ; making 6 members for all Scotland. We shall have some- 
 thing to say about this rather inadequate representation of Scottish 
 interests further on. 
 
 In 1864 a request was made from Liverpool that the Chairman 
 of the Liverpool Shipbuilders' Association, who had since 1845 been 
 allowed to hold an ex-officio seat on Liverpool Board, should be, 
 ex'officio, a member of the General Committee. This was refused as 
 contrary to the constitution of Lloyd's Register. 
 
 The Liverpool Underwriters' Registry was started on more liberal 
 principles. One-fourth of its committee were Shipbuilders, and it 
 had a Shipbuilder for Chairman. In consequence of its action and 
 success, rather to the disadvantage of Lloyd's, an entire change was 
 made in 1870 by Lloyd's Register Committee on their system of 
 scantlings and classification for iron vessels, assimilating it, to some 
 extent, to the Liverpool basis and scantlings. From that time Lloyd's 
 Register regained its former prestige ; and the amalgamation of the 
 Liverpool Registry with it in 1885 extinguished all opposition in this 
 country, and left Lloyd's Register practically without a rival in the 
 world. 
 
 An estimate of its great position may be formed from the statistics 
 in Lloyd's Universal Register for this year. From the returns of the 
 ten principal Classification Societies of the world, Lloyd's included — 
 all of which have come into existence since Lloyd's Register began 
 its great career — it appears that these ten Register Societies have 
 among them about 20 million tons of shipping, and of this amount, 
 Lloyd's proportion is 8^ millions ; Bureau Veritas comes next with 
 41^ miltions. The Netherlands Register, Norwegian Veritas, and 
 American Record follow in the order named with about i ^ millions 
 each. German Lloyd's is sixth with about 900 thousand tons. 
 The Italian Register, the Austro-Hungarian Veritas, the Register 
 Maritime, and the Greek Veritas divide about one million tons 
 between them, the last having only 60 thousand tons. 
 
 Some of this tonnage is necessarily duplicated between Lloyd's 
 and the other Registers when foreign vessels are built here and 
 classed in Lloyd's and their National Registers. More especially is 
 this the case with Bureau Veritas ; so that the grand aggregate of 
 classed tonnage may be somewhat less than it appears from the 
 summation of the tonnage of all the Registers ; but it is on the whole 
 
CLASSIFICATION OF SHIPPING. 7 
 
 near enough to show their respective importance as Classification 
 Societies. 
 
 Another point of importance is the proportion of wood and iron 
 tonnage in the respective books. 93^ per cent, of all the tonnage 
 in Lloyd's Register is of iron or steel, the remainder being wood or 
 composite, the latter a very small amount. 
 
 The extent to which wooden Shipbuilding or Shipowning still 
 prevails in foreign countries will be evident from the following 
 statement : — While only 6 Y^ per cent, of all Lloyd's classed tonnage 
 is of wood, 41 per cent, of the tonnage of the Netherlands Register 
 is of the same material. The wooden tonnage of Bureau Veritas is 
 67 per cent. ; of the Italian Register, 73 per cent. ; of the German 
 Lloyds, 77 per cent. ; of the Register Maritime, 78^ per cent. ; of 
 the American Record, 81 per cent. ; of the Austrian Veritas, 92 per 
 cent.; of the Norwegian Veritas, 92}^ per cent.; of the Greek Veritas, 
 100 per cent; the latter not having a composite, iron, or steel vessel 
 in its books. 
 
 From Lloyd's Register Book for this year we learn that only 
 2,384 tons of wooden vessels were built to class by Lloyd's in 1886; 
 which shows the almost entire cessation of wooden shipbuilding 
 under Lloyd's Registry both at home and abroad. 
 
 From the same volume we learn that the tonnage of iron and 
 steel vessels bearing Lloyd's class is as follows : — 
 
 Tons. 
 British, ... ... ... ... 6,519,644 
 
 Colonial, ... ... ... .. 164,777 
 
 Foreign, ... ... ... ... 1,290,421 
 
 Total Iron and Steel, ... 7,974,842 
 
 Of wood and composite vessels classed by Lloyd's, the tonnage is 
 as under : — 
 
 Tons. 
 British, ... ... ... ... 382,492 
 
 Colonial, ... ... ... ... 82,592 
 
 Foreign, ... ... ... ... 83,141 
 
 Total, wood and composite, ... 548,225 
 
 The aggregate of all kinds classed at Lloyd's is : — 
 
 Tons. 
 British, ... ... .. ... 6,902,136 
 
 Colonial, ... ... ... ... 247,369 
 
 Foreign, ... ... i,373>S62 
 
 Grand total, ... ... 8,523,067 
 
8 CLASSIFICATION OF SHIPPING. 
 
 It is stated in the Universal Register, that the total tonnage of 
 the world is 20,943,650, and of this the United Kingdom and 
 Colonies possess 10,539,166. Rather more than half of the tonnage 
 of the world flies the British flag ; and it will be seen at a glance how 
 large a proportion of this purely British tonnage bears the distinctive 
 marks of Lloyd's Register. 
 
 We may here take leave of the Foreign Registers, with the hope 
 that the great British Registry, and the nation that has made it, 
 may be able to maintain in the future that empire of the sea, which, 
 together, they have achieved in the past. And let us express, as we 
 must, our unqualified admiration for this wonderful Association that 
 stands unapproached at the head of the world's shipping, and for the 
 ability and power of organisation which have placed and maintained 
 Lloyd's Register for more than fifty years in this distinguished 
 position. 
 
 In the presence of this greatest of the powers that be in Ship- 
 ping, I am almost afraid even to hint at imperfection in its constitu- 
 tion and its work ; but as not even the British Constitution can 
 withstand the changes demanded by time and the reformer, we may 
 venture, without abating in the least our admiration and respect for 
 the gentlemen whose position and work we criticise, to consider for 
 a little one or two points on which it is possible that the govern- 
 ment of Lloyd's Register Society may be capable of amendment in 
 constitution and practice. 
 
 The first in order, from the Shipbuilder's point of view, and not 
 less in the interest of the Shipowner, is the amendment of the Rules 
 for Scantlings. And the second point, which is probably of greater 
 interest to both parties, is reform of the Constitution ; and Representa- 
 tion on the Committee. Bearing on the first point, it is important to 
 remember — 
 
 THE OBJECT AND METHODS OF CLASSIFICATION. 
 
 The primary object of " Classification," as we all know, is " the 
 security of the Underwriter." That was the origin of Lloyd's Register 
 more than 100 years ago, and of all other Classification Societies 
 since. For that object all these Societies have been maintained 
 and expanded, absorbing all control over the Shipping of the 
 world. If the Underwriter does not feel safe, premiums advance 
 and risks are refused. Few Shipowners can aff'ord to take the whole, 
 or even large risks on their vessels, and it would be a grievous 
 restraint on trade to compel small Shipping investors to risk greater 
 loss with their property than they are liable to in the ordinary 
 
CLASSIFICATION OF SHIPPING. 9 
 
 fluctuations of business. Hence the necessity for Classification as a 
 protection to the ordinary Shipowner as well as to the Underwriter. 
 
 Large Shipowning Companies, or Lines, that are sufficiently well 
 known, are independent of the Classification Societies. Their repu- 
 tation is their class, and they may build as they please. Smaller 
 Shipowners must rely for the character of their vessels on the 
 imprimatur ,oi the Registries. 
 
 Irrespective of the ability of owners to take the entire risks on 
 their vessels, and dispense with Classification, merchants must be 
 satisfied with the underwriting on their cargoes; and in foreign ports 
 where ship and Shipowner are alike unknown, the reputation and 
 remuneration of both depend on the Classification certificate, what- 
 ever may be the Shipowner's financial abihty to dispense with it. 
 Hence the Underwriter, in the comparatively recent past, with the 
 great development of commerce and shipping of the last fifty years, 
 has been in a position to dictate his own terms for cq^pstruction and 
 classification, and Shipowners and Shipbuilders had no choice but 
 obey. 
 
 Naturally, at the first, and for a considerable time after 1834, there 
 was a good deal of ignorance and inexperience on all hands, 
 especially in the transition from wood to iron shipbuilding. Timber 
 of all kinds varied greatly in quality and durability, hence wooden 
 vessels were properly classed for terms of years, according to the 
 quality and arrangement of the timber of which they were built, 
 and to the quantity and arrangement of iron, brass, and copper 
 fastenings by which the various timbers were bound together. 
 
 With iron vessels the homogeneous character of the material 
 obviated all difficulty on the score of durability, except in so far as 
 the thinness of the scantling might be affected by corrosion ; hence 
 it was early seen that the terms of years that were appropriate 
 enough in the classification of wooden vessels, were inappropriate 
 for iron vessels. The Liverpool Registry broke the record in 1862 
 with their 20 years' grade, and compelled Lloyd's Register in 1870 
 to abandon the yearly grades for the present 100 A and other 
 standards of unlimited duration, subject only to periodic survey. 
 
 This change in the terms and symbols of Classification was 
 accompanied by an even more important change in the scantlings 
 and arrangement of material in iron vessels ; and in the basis upon 
 which the amount and distribution of this material in construction 
 was determined, as well as in the amount and quality of the work- 
 manship required to be expended on it. 
 
10 CLASSIFICATION OF SHIPPING. 
 
 BASIS OF Lloyd's rules for construction. 
 
 Tonnage was the principal basis for the regulation of scantlings 
 by all Register Societies till 1862, when the Liverpool Underwriters' 
 Registry introduced the system of apportioning scantlings by linear 
 dimensions. Tonnage continued to be the regulating standard of 
 Lloyd's Register for all vessels until 1870, and is still their regulat- 
 ing standard for wooden and composite vessels. 
 
 The chief reason assigned for the change in 1870 from tonnage 
 to " numerals," which has since been the regulating standard for iron 
 and steel vessels, was, that as the scantlings had been made to de- 
 pend on a tonnage measured and calculated after the vessels were com- 
 pleted, by an authority outside of the Register, and over which they 
 had no control, it frequently happened that vessels built to the limit 
 of one tonnage grade, were found upon measurement to have over- 
 stepped that grade, and very great trouble was in consequence oc- 
 casioned to builders, owners, and the Registry, for which there was 
 no redress. This is naturally the case with all hard and fast lines in 
 two hands, but it will be obvious that the same objection would 
 apply, and the same troubles arise, with any system of apportioning 
 scantlings, which involved measurement of the vessel during con- 
 struction, or after completion, even by the Society's Surveyors alone ; 
 and it was doubtless felt that unless the Shipbuilders' plans and 
 calculations could be relied on for measurement before the work was 
 begun, some simpler method, like the Liverpool system, was the 
 only alternative. 
 
 That the evils of the tonnage system were not very serious, will be 
 manifest from the fact that under it the range between the grades 
 below 1,000 tons was only 100 tons ; and above 1,000 tons nowhere 
 exceeded 500 tons. 
 
 The ranges were undeniably narrow in the lower grades, although 
 sufficiently wide in the higher. Any difference at all below 1,000 
 tons could scarcely be less than 100 tons, and as the majority 
 of the vessels of that period were under 1,000 tons, they had to be built 
 to the upper limits of their grades to get the full benefit of the change 
 of scantlings. As a natural consequence, mistakes and overstepping 
 were not uncommon where the margin was so small, and Government 
 official measurers, as well as Lloyd's, inflexible. 
 
 This reason was probably considered sufficient for the very great 
 change from " Tonnage " to " Numerals ; " but it is hardly too much 
 to say, that from being too narrow, the " Numeral " grades, although 
 
CLASSIFICATION OF SHIPPING. H 
 
 probably intended to give identical results with the superseded 
 tonnage grades, were found in practice to be so very wide, as 
 respects tonnage and displacement, that it is scarcely possible to 
 make any tonnage too large to go through them, and almost equally 
 impossible, with ordinary attention, to overstep the grading lines. 
 
 The Liverpool system had accustomed Shipbuilders and Ship- 
 owners to the manipulation of form and scantlings on a dimensions 
 basis ; and, with the numeral system of Lloyd's, they soon learned to 
 select the proportions and dimensions which promised the largest 
 capacity — dead-weight and measurement — with the least material in 
 the ship itself; and the tonnage being no longer any check upon 
 scantlings, the shapes of modern cargo carriers became remarkable 
 for the success with which the squarest forms that could be driven 
 through the water at the lowest commercially profitable speed were 
 evolved from Lloyd's new rules. 
 
 That it was not Mr Waymouth's intention in the framing of the 
 " Numeral System " to encourage abnormal forms, but rather the 
 reverse, will be evident from the fact of his importing the half-girth 
 of the midship section into the formula for scantlings. The under- 
 lying idea of the half-girth was probably the old beHef that had 
 dominated the designs of vessels till that time, namely — " That the 
 form of a vessel (now expressed in co-efficients of tonnage) might be 
 held to be the exact equivalent of the rise of floor." I need scarcely 
 say that this idea or belief no longer holds any place in the Ship- 
 builder's estimate of the necessities of form. Thanks chiefly to the 
 experimental investigations of the late Mr Froude, it has been 
 satisfactorily demonstrated that the breadth, shape, and area of the 
 midship section have little or no influence on speed ; the midship 
 section has therefore been dropped out of consideration by Ship- 
 builders, further than in its eff"ect upon Lloyd's numerals for 
 scantlings. 
 
 In this respect it not unfrequently defeats the end intended, 
 which is assumed to be — *' Midship's strength in relation to length 
 of vessel and the loaded stress the material in the midship section 
 may have to bear." 
 
 With vessels of guaranteed dead weight carrying capacity, where 
 the load displacement is a fixed quantity, the breadth may be 
 minimised and the half girth reduced by rounding the bilge, both to 
 the extreme limit of instability — as has been sadly illustrated in the 
 lists of missing and foundered — all to save a numeral and secure 
 lighter scantlings ; while the load so removed from the middle has 
 been transferred to the two ends, on the form of which there is no 
 
12 CLASSIFICATION OF SHIPPING. 
 
 restriction. Hence the lighter midship scantlings are penalised by 
 weight in the wrong place, both for strength and seaworthiness. 
 
 All scientific naval architects know, and none know better than 
 the distinguished chiefs of Lloyd's Register, that it would be an 
 advantage to the ship in increased strength, stability, and speed, to 
 be able to remove the weight and fulness from the ends to the 
 middle, by increasing the breadth and area of the midship section 
 without increasing the displacement, and, if it were possible, without 
 increasing the scantlings and weight of the ship itself; but, 
 unfortunately, we all know, and none know better than the gentlemen 
 referred to, that this is practically impossible under the numeral 
 system. The shape of the ship beyond the middle is independent 
 of the formulae for scantlings. The middle is bound by breadth, 
 half breadth, and half girth in rigid bonds, from which there is no 
 escape ; while the ends may play all the fantastic tricks in shape and 
 sheer with which we have become familiar. 
 
 If, on the other hand, we have room enough in the middle, within 
 the numerals, for our load displacement, to any degree of fineness 
 we may require for speed, no consideration is given in the scantlings 
 for any removal of the weight from the ends, and consequent 
 diminution of stress on the material of the midship section. With 
 the same dimensions and midship section, no alteration of a single 
 figure of the numerals or scantlings is necessary to vary the form of 
 the vessel through the entire range of co-efficients usual in merchant 
 shipbuilding, from -50 to '85 ; with all the variations in tonnage, 
 displacement, load, and strength, these figures represent. 
 
 As the scantlings are apportioned to the heaviest strains that can 
 be brought to bear on vessels of the fullest forms, designed to the 
 upper limits of the respective grades, the strength requirements of the 
 rules become oppressive on all the finer forms in various ways. 
 
 Firstly, by being burdened with a weight and strength of scantlings 
 sufficient for double or treble their load displacement. 
 
 Secondly, by the consequent greater first cost of the vessel itself 
 and the power required to drive it. 
 
 Thirdly, in that the extra weight where the draft of water is 
 limited necessitates greater length and breadth, and consequently 
 increased scantlings, with still greater weight, displacement, and power, 
 than would be required were the scantlings equitably proportioned to 
 their work. 
 
 The action and re-action of these excesses, continually add to the 
 size and cost, without in any respect adding to the efficiency of the 
 vessel, or of the service for which it may be required. 
 
CLASSIFICATION OF SHIPPING. 13 
 
 THE REMEDY — A DISPLACEMENT BASIS. 
 
 The remedy for this is simple, and involves no change of 
 principle in Lloyd's Rules. " Let the dimensions and load line 
 displacement, together determine the form, strength, and scantlings, 
 for the work required." 
 
 Strength in relation to length of vessel, and load, is already the funda- 
 mental principle of Lloyd's Rules and Tables of Scantlings for iron and 
 steel vessels. It is also the fundamental principle of the Freeboard 
 Rules and Tables first put forward by Mr Martell, the eminent Chief 
 Surveyor of Lloyd's Registry, and, with certain modifications— in- 
 cluding a more explicit recognition of the principle of " strength in 
 relation to length and load " — approved by the Load Line Committee, 
 accepted by the Board of Trade, and again transferred to Lloyd's 
 Register Committee for administration. Doubtless Lloyd's accepted 
 all the conditions, expressed and implied, in the Report and Rules 
 of the Load Line Committee. We may therefore assume that the 
 old objection, that " a load line must first be determined before a 
 displacement base can be adopted," is now obviated. And with the 
 recommendation of the Load Line Committee, and of the Royal 
 Commission on Loss of Life at Sea, this Load Line is not unlikely 
 to receive Parliamentary enactment, and international adoption. 
 
 The Load Line Committee attached three conditions to their 
 Report and Rules, with which the Administrative Authority would 
 require to comply. 
 
 The first is that the Freeboard of vessels not classed by Lloyd's 
 shall be determined by their strength in relation to the types of 
 Lloyd's classed vessels to which they may belong. 
 
 Secondly, that vessels of Lloyd's class of the spar and awning 
 deck types may have their Freeboard reduced or increased as their 
 strength is increased or reduced above or below the standard of their 
 respective types. 
 
 Thirdly, " that this strength shall be determined by the limit at 
 which the stress per square inch, upon the material of the hull 
 amidships, shall not exceed that of the Standard Class, of the same 
 proportions, form, and moulded depth, when loaded to the freeboards 
 assigned " by the respective rules and tables. 
 
 The point in these conditions which the Load Line Committee 
 did not feel themselves in a position to determine more exactly, is 
 the formula or factor by which this stress upon the midship section 
 is to be ascertained. They were well aware that the stress factor for 
 Lloyd's first-class ships was not an uniform quantity, but varied greatly 
 
14 CLASSIFICATION OF SHIPPING. 
 
 with the size of the vessel as respects dimensions, and with the form 
 and load, on all dimensions ; hence they declared that " to the 
 responsible authorities a large discretion must be allowed in applying 
 the tables with reasonable modifications " from time to time ; adding, 
 " We are well aware that the discretion which we thus regard as 
 necessary, is such as should be exercised with very great skill, care, 
 and judgment ; but we see no reason why those charged with the 
 responsible duty of preventing the overloading of merchant ships, 
 should not have at their command all needful assistance." 
 
 That Lloyd's Register Committee have at their command all 
 needful assistance is unquestionable; the point involved for the 
 consideration of Shipowners who do not class at Lloyd's, as well as 
 for those who do, but who require other forms than the full-bodied, 
 low-speed types for which Lloyd's Rules alone provide: — and all Ship- 
 builders, as well as Shipowners, are more or less interested in this 
 question: — is, "What is the Standard by which vessels of fine form, 
 with scantling arrangements that do not conform to Lloyd's Rules, 
 are to be judged ?" 
 
 It requires no great stretch of imagination to feel assured that 
 witli any other competent administrative authority than Lloyd's, the 
 relation between the strength of fine and full-formed vessels would 
 probably be equitably treated ; but, with Lloyd's Register Committee 
 as the administrative body, under their own rules, in competition or 
 comparison with other people's rules, or arrangements of scantlings 
 for strength, it is just possible that finely formed vessels with 
 unorthodox scantlings, would receive slight consideration. Hence, 
 in view of Lloyd's Register Committee being confirmed as the 
 administrative body for the Load Line, it is not unreasonable to ask 
 them to define their standard of strength for each respective grade, 
 so that all vessels of the same grade, and irrespective of form, shall 
 have the same measure of strength in relation to their load displace- 
 ment, dimensions, and proportions, as every other on the same 
 dimensions within the respective grades. 
 
 In this way alone will it be possible for Shipbuilders and Ship- 
 owners, who desire to build vessels for specific purposes on specific 
 load lines, and on other scantlings and rules than those of Lloyd's 
 Register, and of other forms than the fullest, be able to know by 
 comparison, with any measure of probability, what they have to do to 
 ensure sufficient strength for the work they intend their vessels to 
 perform on the statutory " Freeboard," or any greater freeboard they 
 may prefer. 
 
 The sum of the argument in favour of a displacement basis for 
 
CLASSIFICATION OF SHIPPING. 15 
 
 scantlings, with a strength factor for each grade, is, that the " Load 
 Displacement " determines absolutely the weight of the ship, for 
 which strength has to be provided, — with all its deck erections, 
 irrespective of their size or tonnage or the purpose for which they 
 have been erected ; with the machinery and entire equipment ; and 
 with the coal and cargo with which it can be loaded to the specific 
 freeboard, either for safety or strength ; — while the " Length of the 
 Ship" determines with equal certainty the limit of the distribution of 
 that weight for the necessary strength to carry it. 
 
 The only doubtful point in respect to distribution, is that while a 
 fixed load displacement is the measure of the form of every ship, the 
 distribution of weight varies with the arrangement of the weights of 
 the ship itself — of its superstructure, equipment, and machinery — 
 as fixed elements, and of the coal and cargo as varying elements, and 
 with each new cargo ; hence the measure of strength, or factor of 
 safety, must make sufficient allowance for irregularities in this 
 direction, which, as respects the cargo only, cannot be calculated 
 with certainty. 
 
 The absolute certainty on this basis consists in the fixed character 
 of the Load Line displacement, which, according to the form of the 
 vessel, can never be altered. 
 
 The absolutely exact ratio between the co-efificients of under deck 
 tonnage and displacement, was proved to the satisfaction of the 
 Load Line Committee by Mr Martell, Mr William Denny, and 
 myself, so that the correctness of a load displacement base is incon- 
 trovertible, and the check by under deck tonnage inevitable, while 
 the ignorant or intentional overstepping of the grades, which the 
 tonnage check would expose, could be met by the simple penalty of 
 a corresponding increase of freeboard to equalise the strength. 
 Another absolute certainty is " the greater cargo strains under storm 
 conditions, of full-bodied vessels which carry their loads with 
 comparatively little diminution to their extremities." The 
 " pitching " and " ascending," " rolling " and " twisting " motions 
 of such vessels in heavy seas, are always relatively more 
 severe than in finer ended vessels, because of their greater 
 load and greater displacement at the bow and stern; so that 
 the stress on the material of the midship section of a full-bodied 
 vessel of the co-efficient 'So type is in point of fact, as well 
 as by calculation, at least twice as great as it is in the 
 midship section of a co- efficient -50 vessel of the same 
 dimensions and scantlings, at their respective load lines. Hence 
 factors for strength ought to be greatest for the fullest forms in ratio 
 
i6 CLASSIFICATION OF SHIPPING. 
 
 to their length ; but inasmuch as the finer forms for higher speeds 
 have greater driving strains to contend with — in the panting and 
 vibrating of their ends — which require to be otherwise provided for, 
 it need not be disputed that an uniform factor in ratio to length and 
 load, determined by the strength presently found sufficient for the 
 fullest form in each grade, would give an ample margin for all other 
 strains on other forms within the grades. 
 
 There are sufficient and well understood reasons why small 
 vessels should be relatively stronger than large vessels — measured 
 by the factor of stress upon their midship sections — but there 
 scarcely seems reason enough why vessels of 200 tons should 
 require to be four times as strong as vessels of 2,000 tons. Never- 
 theless, with a fair factor of strength for each grade of displacement, 
 according to length, justice as between ship and ship would probably 
 be satisfied. 
 
 It need hardly be repeated here, that every saving in weight of 
 hull without diminution of strength, is of value to the Shipowner, 
 not only in the smaller first cost, but in the weight saved being 
 available for freight earning cargo, or for greater power with increased 
 speed, or for reducing the size of vessel for the same cargo, or for 
 other reasons, which Shipowners are equally capable of estimating 
 and appreciating. This is the main reason for the great de- 
 velopment of steel shipbuilding within recent years. The same 
 remark applies to machinery. Increased power from lighter 
 weights is the order of the day. Steel castings, forgings, and 
 boilers ; higher pressures, and quicker piston speed, evolving 
 the largest power out of the smallest weight of machinery, 
 and with the least consumption of fuel ; each and every im- 
 provement promoting all round economy, with greatly increased 
 efficiency. All these things are necessary to enable us to hold our 
 own against foreign competition ; and it is certainly the interest of the 
 Shipowners, and the duty of Lloyd's Register, as the greatest 
 representative interest of the Shipowners in this country, to see that 
 every ton of material used in the construction of ships and machinery, 
 is doing useful work and a fair proportion of that work, instead of 
 adding unnecessarily to the costly and unremunerative load. 
 
 REFORM IN THE CONSTITUTION AND REPRESENTATION OF LLOYD'S 
 
 REGISTER. 
 
 Coming now to the second point in our " Reform Bill," without 
 which the first will probably stand an indiff"erent chance of receiving 
 much attention, it is desirable in the interest of the Shipowners and 
 
CLASSIFICATION OF SHIPPING. li 
 
 Shipbuilders of Britain, that there should be a revision of the Con- 
 stitution of Lloyd's Register Society, and in the representation of 
 the principal shipowning and shipbuilding ports, upon the Committee. 
 
 At present. Shipbuilders are not recognised by the Constitution 
 as having either rights, privileges, or interests, in the affairs of the 
 Society, or in their own business. Possibly this may have been due 
 to the fact that at the time of the framing of the Constitution, the 
 Shipbuilders were entirely independent of the Registry, and acknow- 
 ledged as such, by the London Underwriters, Merchants and Ship- 
 owners, who then reorganised it. 
 
 It need hardly be said that the subsequent assumption by Lloyd's 
 Register Committee of the entire control of the shipbuilding of the 
 country has totally altered the conditions of the respective interests 
 represented and affected by it. 
 
 Shipbuilders from being independent have become the humble 
 servants of the Society, with a very small voice in the construction 
 of the vessels they build. 
 
 I doubt if the Underwriters, Merchants, and Shipowners, who 
 framed the constitution, foresaw or intended this result ; or if any of 
 them at the present day would be disposed to attempt a justification 
 of this unrepresented exclusion of the great interest they so entirely 
 control. 
 
 There are gentlemen now on Lloyd's Committee as Shipowners, 
 Merchants, and Underwriters who are Shipbuilders first, and whose 
 presence as Shipbuilders is a distinct gain to the Committee. 
 
 With the utmost respect for the Underwriters and Merchants, 
 who compose two-thirds of the Committee, the question may be 
 asked — Have they any knowledge of the technical details of their 
 administration ? 
 
 As Shipowners, if they are also Shipowners, no one will dispute 
 their knowledge, because it is an important part of their business to 
 know something of the constructive details of the vessels they own ; 
 but with the practical and scientific reasons for these details, probably 
 few Shipowners even are familiar. The Shipowners on Lloyd's 
 Register Committee know that the scantlings and arrangement rules 
 of their Society are the result of great experience and scientific skill, 
 and as such are taken on trust by the non-technical members of the 
 Committee and legislated for accordingly. 
 
 Science of all kinds nowadays — as well as trade and commerce — 
 has become the business of specialists, and it is no disparagement to 
 the non-technical members of Lloyd's Committee, that they feel 
 themselves obliged to rely to a great extent on their few technical 
 
l8 CLASSIFICATION OF SHIPPING. 
 
 members and permanent scientific staff. Let it at once be admitted — 
 as it will be by all who know them — that the gentlemen who con- 
 stitute the principal executive of Lloyd's Register are unsurpassed 
 in their technical and scientific knowledge of naval architecture ; but 
 it is impossible for them to forget that they are the responsible 
 advisers of the Committee of the most important shipping organisa- 
 tion in the world ; and that it is not their duty — as it is not their 
 interest — to initiate changes in the rules and administration of their 
 Society, until the inexorable logic of necessity compels them. 
 
 I feel sure that those gentlemen would not be likely to object to 
 an addition to the Committee of practical and scientific Shipbuilders 
 and Engineers, whose special knowledge would relieve them from 
 their present heavy burden of undivided responsibility, and support 
 them in any measure that would be for the general benefit of all the 
 interests controlled by their great organization. 
 
 Let me add, in a word, that no objection could be taken to the 
 admission on the Committee of representatives from the Institution 
 of Naval Architects in London ; from the Institution of Engineers 
 and Shipbuilders in Scotland ; and from the younger, but not less 
 important Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders of the North- 
 East Coast of England. The interests these Institutions represent 
 are recognised by the world at large as not second to any in this 
 this great maritime country. 
 
 Passing from the debatable ground of a change of constitution 
 to the safer platform of the rights presently within it, I have been at 
 some pains to look into the matter of more equitable representation 
 on the Committee from the Shipowners' point of view — more 
 especially as concerns the representation of the Clyde and Scotland. 
 
 For this purpose I have analysed Lloyd's Register Book for this 
 present year, extracting the number and tonnage of all the vessels 
 belonging to the respective ports represented on Lloyd's Register 
 Committee — not merely the port of Registry — many vessels are 
 registered where they are neither owned nor managed — but taking 
 the list of ownership in the book, giving each port the credit of all 
 shipping standing in the names of the owners or managers in that 
 port. e.g. — The P. & O. registered where built, and the British 
 India and the Castle Line chiefly Scotch, all managed in London. 
 
 As a basis of comparison, I have taken the total British tonnage 
 classed at Lloyd's, as given in the statistical table of the same book. 
 Also, the present number of members of Committee, to be divided, 
 in proportion to tonnage, among the ports presently represented. 
 
 The following is the tabulated result : — 
 
CLASSIFICATION OF SHIPPING. 
 
 19 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 V*H ^ 
 
 Q S 5^ 
 
 (U 
 
 !y c 
 
 W (L) 
 
 ID 
 
 O O' 
 
 o o 
 
 
 o o *^ 
 
 o t^ 
 
 t^ 00 
 
 vo 00 
 
 10 f«^ 
 vo t~% 
 
 -< o 
 
 
 VO fO 
 
 r^ IN. 
 
 ^ 
 
 8^ 
 
 ON 00 
 
 00 to 
 
 VO t^ 
 
 N 00 
 
 O 
 O 
 
 (X, 
 
 w 
 
 
 fe (^ 
 
 t< 
 
 60 C/3 
 
 „ _ *~ w — '-' i^ 
 
 g 2 Q r '^ '^ 
 
 O 
 
 n, ^ 'Z ^. 
 
 "^^60t/3 ""D^Sc.. 
 
 
 •<;vo 
 
 2b 
 
 < 
 
 C/J 
 
 <00~ 
 
 < '-' 
 ??: — 
 
 en M 
 
 <: 
 
 H 
 
 c/300 
 
 N Q 
 
20 CLASSIFICATION OF SHIPPING. 
 
 It will be observed that the eleven principal ports or districts 
 shewn in the table hold among them 96*2 per cent, of the total 
 classed tonnage owned in Britain. 
 
 London's share of that tonnage is 24-33 P^^ cent., and its repre- 
 sentation on Lloyd's Register Committee is 52 per cent, or 26 
 members. If represented in proportion to its shipping, it should 
 have only 12 members; but, crediting it as the principal port, and 
 the headquarters of the Society, with the 2 members due to the 3 "8 
 per cent, of classed British shipping owned in other places than the 
 represented ports, its maximum representation would be 14 members 
 instead of 26. 
 
 It will probably be contended that London, as the port of origin 
 of the Society, and the metropolitan representative of British interests 
 everywhere, is entitled to represent the Colonial and Foreign Shipping 
 classed at Lloyd's. London's right to all honour and priority on the 
 ground stated is not disputed, but the contention can hardly be main- 
 tained that the Merchants and Shipowners of London, who elect 
 two-thirds of London's representatives on Lloyd's Committee, have a 
 greater interest in the Colonial and Foreign vessels classed by the 
 Society than the Merchants and Shipowners of the rest of the United 
 Kingdom. 
 
 The total Colonial tonnage classed at Lloyd's is only 333 vessels 
 of 247,369 tons, and the whole of it would barely entitle the Colonies 
 to 2 representatives. 
 
 The Foreign Shipping classed at Lloyd's is 1080 vessels of 
 1,373,562 tons, but this cannot be acknowledged as a British interest 
 at all, much less as a peculiarly London one. Most of the foreign 
 vessels built in Britain, or built to Lloyd's class abroad, are of iron or 
 steel, classed for the scantlings and survey chiefly, and frequently in 
 association with Bureau Veritas, or other first-class Continental 
 Registry, to satisfy the nationality of the owners. London has 
 therefore no right to a monopoly of that interest to the exclusion of 
 the other ports represented on the Committee. All are entitled to 
 share alike in the Colonial and Foreign interests in the proportion of 
 their British interests in the Society. " 
 
 As respects Scotland's right to additional representation — the 
 Scottish ports presently represented are entitled to 10 members, 
 instead of 6. But, in addition to the shipowning interests of 
 Scotland, the Clyde has a special claim to representation as the 
 greatest shipbuilding centre in the world. 
 
 According to Lloyd's Register, 399,711 tons of shipping were 
 built in the United Kingdom last year, of which Lloyd's classed 
 
CLASSIFICATION OF SHIPPING. 2i 
 
 371,908 tons. For the details of this shipbuilding, we have to apply 
 to the statistics of the Board of Trade for 1886, and under the head- 
 ing of "Total Number and Net Tonnage of Sailing Vessels, and 
 Gross Tonnage of Steam Vessels, built at each Port in the United 
 Kingdom in 1886, exclusive of Vessels built for Foreigners, and War 
 
 Vessels," we find that 
 
 Tons. 
 
 = 3.696 
 
 = 18,268 
 
 = 49,614 
 
 = 46,187 
 
 = 33,797 
 
 London built 
 
 45 Vessels, 
 
 Liverpool ,, 
 
 16 „ 
 
 The Tyne ,, 
 
 50 
 
 The Wear „ 
 
 28 „ 
 
 The Tees ,, 
 
 18 „ 
 
 Total, 157 „ = 151,162 
 
 While the Clyde between Glasgow and Greenock built 151 vessels, 
 of i35»i59 tons. 
 
 Please note that the five shipbuilding districts of England above 
 enumerated return 41 members to Lloyd's Register Committee of 
 50, Liverpool having in addition, as already stated, a Branch Com- 
 mittee of 13 members. This makes a total representation of 54 
 members for these ports on and directly influencing the administra- 
 tion of Lloyd's Register Committee, while the Clyde has only 5. 
 
 The Clyde, which owns J/^th of the total British tonnage classed 
 in Lloyd's Register, and which builds 6 times the British merchant 
 tonnage of London and Liverpool combined, has about i/7th of 
 their joint representation on Lloyd's Register Committee, and less 
 than i/9th of the combined London and Liverpool Committees of 
 Lloyd's Register. 
 
 It need scarcely be said that there is matter here for serious 
 reflection on the part of the Shipowners and Shipbuilders of Scot- 
 land, and I might add also, for our friends of the Tyne, Wear, and 
 Tees. They equal the Scottish ports in the tonnage owned among 
 them, and in their aggregate shipbuilding. 
 
 Between them and us, we build nearly all the shipping of Great 
 Britain and of the Colonies and foreign countries who favour 
 British shipbuilding. Between them and us we own 40 per cent, of 
 all the tonnage classed in Lloyd's Register Book, yet as Shipbuilders 
 we have not a voice in its construction, and as Shipowners, 
 Merchants, and Underwriters, not the fourth part of its representation 
 on the Committee of Lloyd's Register. 
 
 For Scotland, the case is peculiar ; much of our shipbuilding 
 comes from England, as well as from the Colonies and foreign 
 countries, and not a little of it from our compatriots resident in 
 
22 CLASSIFICATION OF SHIPPING. 
 
 England and abroad, for whose shipowning enterprise England 
 naturally gets credit. 
 
 In respect of shipbuilding, London and Liverpool are nowhere in 
 comparison with Scotland ; and in shipowning, we are not far short of 
 either. Is it not time therefore that the north country Shipowners 
 and Shipbuilders should respectfully invite Lloyd's Register Com- 
 mittee to consider a revision of their constitution and representation. 
 
 Possibly it might be said on behalf of Scotland that a Branch 
 Committee, on the lines of Liverpool, would suit us better than 
 additional representation in London. The honour of a seat at the 
 London Board is counterbalanced by the inability of our representa- 
 tives to attend the weekly meetings of the Committee, or indeed 
 oftener than once a month, or three or four times in a year. In this 
 way much of the value of their services is lost to their constituents, 
 while all their time and collective wisdom would be utilised on a 
 local committee with properly delegated powers. 
 
 It is for you, gentlemen, as the representative Shipowners of 
 Scotland, in conjunction with the Shipowners of the North of 
 England, to take the necessary action to have your representation 
 rectified; and, I think, I may venture to add, on behalf of the 
 Shipbuilders and Engineers of Scotland and the North of England, 
 and on behalf of the three great institutions I have named as 
 representing the Science and Art of Naval Architecture and Marine 
 Engineering in Great Britain, that you may count upon their hearty 
 co-operation — as they would earnestly solicit yours — to amend your 
 representation, and to remove from the constitution of Lloyd's 
 Register the slur that presently rests on the unrepresented heads of 
 the greatest Shipbuilding and Engineering interests in the world. 
 
.^ Vv^ 
 
 l»#, 
 
 'M:d 
 
 -pittP 
 
 J^ 
 
 i! 
 
 >'^^^' 
 
 ^ 
 
 i?«^»^;