IN the article on this subject in oar last number we stated that nine out of the twelve members of the Royal Commission on Tonnage were unanimous in their recommendations; that three of their number objected to sign the Report, viz., Messrs. GLOVER, WAYMOUTH, and ROTHBEY, and that only the last two differed in principle, the others all advocating the present system of roomage, or internal cubical capacity available for stowage of cargo, represented by a roomage or space ton of 100 cubic feet.

" From the Gross Tonnage as ascertained by the measurement of the internal capacity of the hull of the ship and of closed-in spaces avail- able for cargo, stores, &c., the Report recom- mends that the deduction for crew space be continued, and that the captain's cabin and the sail room be also deducted; and to meet the case of ships baring double bottom water-ballast arrangements, it proposes that the measured depth of all ships shall be so taken as not to include (within reasonable limits to be fixed hereafter) the space beneath the floors which cannot be used for cargo, but which may be used for ballast. In short, it allows a liberal deduction for water-ballast, subject only to a check being put to deductions for abnormally deep floor-plates. In the case of steamers, it recommends further that the owners shall elect either to deduct the actual engine and boiler spaces, and the actual fixed bunker space; or the actual engine and boiler spaces plus 75 per cent, as an allowance for fuel, with a limit (of 33 per cent.) to these •deductions in the case of (screw) steamers. The Report recommends the abolition of the existing alternative rule whereby steamers obtain a deduction of 32 per cent, when the actual space is a little over 13, and not exceeding 20 per cent, of the Gross Ton- nage." Mr. GLOVER, it appears, only objected to some of the above modifications of the present system, preferring a closer ad- herence to it.

The practical difference between the general body of the Commissioners and the two last-named dissentients is, that the former advocate internal and the latter external measurement of a ship for ton- nage ; the former that the same should be expressed in roomage or space tons of 100 cubical feet; whilst, of the latter, Mr. WAYMOUTH proposes that the tonnage should be expressed in weight tons of 20 cwt. each, ascertained by the calculated weight of the water displaced by the ship, between the light and load water-lines.

On the other hand, Mr. ROTHERY ad- vocates a displacement tonnage system which seeks to base the tonnage upon the cubical contents or displacement of the vessel below a maximum fixed water-line.

The whole question is undoubtedly a complicated and difficult one, and has become still more so since the introduction of steam as a propelling power, in which so large an amount of space has to be occupied by machinery, fuel, &c., and passenger accommodation. As a set off,  however, to those disadvantages, as com- pared with the greater stowage room for goods cargo in sailing vessels, the quicker time in which steam vessels perform their voyages and realise their freightage, and the proportionally high receipts for the conveyance of passengers over goods, have j to be taken into consideration in the cal- culation of the payments of all dues and taxes, so that they may not fall more heavily on one class of vessels compared with others, as profitable investments of the capital and enterprise of their owners.

A further complication has arisen from the adoption of double bottoms for water ballast, which, although a source of safety, of course diminish the available cargo space.

The Commissioners have, without ex- ception, realised the importance of equal treatment, as far as possible, between ship and ship, the law not giving any preference to, nor inflicting prejudice against, any class or type of ship whatever.

As before stated, the majority of them consider this can be best attained by adherence to the present system, with certain modifications.

They report, moreover, that they have received no complaints from the owners of wooden vessels as to the manner in which the measurements for gross and net ton- nage have been taken under the Board of Trade, but that it has been represented to them "that the great changes of late years in the design and methods of con- struction, and in the dimensions of iron vessels, render it necessary that special rules should be enacted, denning more distinctly the points to and from which measurements should be taken, and per- mitting greater discretion and elasticity in fixing the number of areas and ordinates, so as to ascertain the contents with greater accuracy." As shipowners, insurers, and others personally interested in the question will of course study the Report of the Com- missioners itself for full information, we do not propose to discuss in detail their propositions and the reasons by which they were influenced in making them, but only to touch on some of the questions of most interest to the general reader.

One of these questions is that arising from the comparatively novel adoption of water ballast. On it the Commissioners remark, under Clause 19— " Many shipowners urged that this space should be entirely excluded from measurement, for such reasons as the following:—That it is not freight-earning space; that cargo cannot be carried in it; that the double bottom is a source of strength and safety; that vessels have been saved from foundering through being so built; that in the wise of heavy cargoes it is found advantageous by raising the weight; and that vessels so constructed do not require dock or harbour facilities for loading or unloading ballast." Then, in Clause 45, they give their reasons for deciding not to exempt water- ballast spaces from tonnage.

" As regards provision for water-ballast, it seems to us that although double bottom spaces may not be used for the stowage of cargo, they often practically contribute to freight earning, inasmuch as the entire hold in such cases is available for light cargo, whereas a portion of the hold in a ship not fitted with water-ballast would be unremuneratively occupied by stone or other material for ballast. It is also manifest that a ship fitted with a double bottom on the bracket or cellular system is externally a larger ship, and is capable of carrying more dead- weight cargo, with a given freeboard, than a ship of the same internal dimensions, and of precisely the same tonnage, constructed without a double bottom, or with double bottom water- ballast on the Mclntyre system. It is therefore our opinion, notwithstanding the statements referred to in section 19 of this Report, that, whilst on the one hand ships constructed to carry water as ballast should not have undue advantage in the admeasurement of tonnage over ships carrying other sorts of ballast, on the other hand, they should not he placed at a disadvantage. We would leave owners at liberty to make such water-ballast arrangements as they please in each case, but we do not think that any water-ballast spaces which may be situated above the floor-plates, or above the point indicated by the limitation as to the depth, of the floor-plates, should be exempted from measurement into tonnage." Another interesting and most important question is as to whether or not the present tonnage laws operate against sea- worthiness. On this head the Commis- missioners observe—Clause 20— " The operation of the law of tonnage, as it affects the seaworthiness of ships, has occupied much of our attention. The decided preponder- ance of evidence is to the effect that considera- tions of a saving of tonnage dues do not operate with shipowners in the building of a ship in the form and of the dimensions most suitable to their purpose, and we have no distinct instance adduced to us to the contrary. But whether this he so or not, we have received abundant and unanimous testimony that in construction, design, speed, economy and safety, the British merchant ship of the present day is not only vastly superior to the British ship of a date prior to the present law of tonnage, but that great improvements have been effected within the last ten years. We have before us the fact that, under the old tonnage law by which the depth of a ship was not measured but was assumed to be about half the breadth, ships were made abnormally deep; and if not made actually dangerous thereby, were a very bad type of ship." We extract from the preface to the Report the following very interesting re- marks on the evils of a bad tonnage law, by Mr. G. MOORSOM, a great authority on the subject, who in 1853 wrote a review and an analysis of the Laws of Tonnage, and who is the inventor of the present system of Tonnage Admeasurement, and its first administrator as Surveyor-General of Tonnage.

Mr. MOORSOM, in considering the ten- dencies and influences of the " old " or "builders" Tonnage law, informs us as follows:— "It is only necessary to this end to regard the bulk of our commercial navy as it stood, in humiliating inferiority, at the close of the great continental war. During that war, this country holding the proud pre-eminence of mistress of the seas, her shipowners became the general maritime carriers of the world. And as it was necessary, on account of the enemy's cruisers, to sail ships in fleets under convoy from one port to another, the fastest sailers afforded to their owners no pecuniary advantage over those of the most inferior order. It became, therefore, the object of owners to construct, regardless of the quality of sailing, such vessels as would carry the greatest possible cargoes under the least amount of register tonnage; or, in other words, to build the most burthensome vessels, subject to the least possible amount of taxation.

" The rule of the ' old law,' as our inquiries have shown us, being eminently calculated to assist in this object, the whole commercial navy of this country soon became tainted, more or less, with its baneful influences. And conse- quently at the conclusion of the war was to be found a horde of vessels totally unfit for general commercial purposes, and still more so for that general international competition which sooner or later, in the natural course of events, would have to be contended with.

"Finally, the extent to which this analysis of the old law has been carried, and the having dwelt, also, so long on the injurious effects of its operations have been in some measure in- duced by the fact that there are still to be found those who not only use the old rule on certain occasions, notwithstanding its abroga- tion, but uphold it on account of its simplicity and ease of application. It is understood (they say) by all who have the least knowledge of shipping, and can be applied, under all circum- stances, with little trouble and expense; and therefore, they maintain, it is peculiarly applic- able to the practical purposes of commercial shipping. It is to such abettors of unqualified simplicity that we have been endeavouring to point out the price paid for these conveniences, in the exhibition of the ill-conditioned struc- tures reared under its license and encourage- ment. In its very ease and simplicity lies its utter worthlessness, either as a criterion of relative capacity, or as a standard for the equitable apportionment of taxation on an op- pressed and struggling branch of the nation's power and prosperity. And when we consider, farther, the dangerous effects of its influences in regard to the property and lives of her Majesty's subjects we are at a loss to understand the policy of its remaining advocates." The following remarks in Clauses 22 and 23 of the Report, on "Well-deck" and "Awning-deck" steamers, as they are termed, are likewise interesting and important:— "22. 'WelLdeck' steamers. —One type of steamship, of which the number is very large, has on the after part of the upper deck one of either of the following arrangements, viz.:— " (a.) A short poop or break ; "(6.) A long poop or break extending to the bridge-house and constituting a continuous erection.

" On the fore-part of the deck there is a top- gallant forecastle, and the space on deck between these erections is uncovered. This type of ship is commonly known as the 'well-deck' ship; and whenever in the evidence the 'well-deck' ship is referred to this type of ship is meant.

" It has been urged by those who advocate that covered-in spaces on deck should be ex- empted from measurement of tonnage, that the covering in of the ' well' would greatly add to the seaworthiness of the ship by increasing the freeboard and preventing the lodgment of water OJi the main-deck, now uncovered; but repeated ] evidence has been given us by owners, builders, ' and masters of 'well-deck' ships that experience j proves them to be specially adapted for the safe conveyance of cargo, and that the losses at sea of such ships have been below the average. It is asserted that they are sailed with a larger pro- portionate surplus buoyancy than most ' three- deck' ships, and that should the well be covered in, a large cargo space would be created and utilised, and the vessel would be liable to be immersed beyond her former depth, and her average freeboard might be no greater than before the alteration.

"The step found necessary by Lloyd's Registry in fixing a load-line for awning-deck ships, which without that load-line were often found to be too deeply laden, supports this assertion.

"We are of opinion that the exemption of any closed-in space from measurement into tonnage, as an inducement to owners to increase the safety of ships, is unsound in principle, and if adopted, would have to be followed by new restrictions, upon which fresh complaints would be founded.

" 23. ' Awning-deck' steamers.—The proposal made to us that special encouragement should be given to the construction of vessels with an awning or shelter deck, and to the covering in of spaces on the main deck, such as exist in 'well-deck' ships, by an entire or partial ex- clusion of the spaces thus made from tonnage, and consequently from payment of dues, is not one in which we are able to concur.

" A ship with an awning or light upper deck, provided her draught is fixed so as to ensure that the main deck be sufficiently out of the water, and that she is properly stowed, is unquestion- ably a specially safe, and in some trades a specially profitable, type of ship. She has, as a rule, a satisfactory amount of freeboard, and if fitted with open bulwarks and. secure deck fastenings, no considerable amount of water can obtain a lodgment upon her deck or penetrate into her hold. At the same time it must be admitted that this typo of ship is not so suitable and profitable for shallow harbours and heavy cargo as the single or the 'well-deck' ship, and certainly is not so stoutly built as a ship known as a ' three-deck' ship. We are of opinion that all these types of ships have their special uses and advantages, and, if properly constructed loaded, and handled, are to all intents and pur- poses seaworthy ships." In Clause 25 the Commissioners give exr cellent reasons for not exempting covered- in spaces from tonnage dues as follows:— " 25. Owners not influenced by tonnage dues in construction of suitable ships.—We do not conceive that owners are deterred by considera- tions of increased tonnage and payment of dues from making their ships suitable for the trade in which they are to be engaged; and we are of opinion that the increased roomage obtained by giving a ship an awning deck, or its equivalent, can, and in many instances would, be utilised for passengers, cattle, or other cargo, with profit to the owner. To exempt such spaces from payment of tonnage dues would be to give one type or class of ship a considerable advantage in competition with another equally seaworthy type, and that at the expense of the harbour and dock proprietors. It might also happen that under reckless or incompetent management such a space would be filled with a heavy cargo; and in that case the exemption which was in- ;ended to prevent danger might be found to lave led to it." With Clause 26, as follows, we entirely agree.

26. Tonnage laws should be colourless in their operation as regards construction of ships.—In fine, we are of opinion that on the one hand the law for the admeasurement of tonnage should not operate to produce a faulty or unseaworthy ship, nor on the other hand to foster or en- courage any one type of ship to the disadvantage of another." In Clause 34 the Commissioners very practically remark that it is clear they have to determine, not only what might be the best system for measuring tonnage, but what, under existing circumstances, is the best practical system.

After stating, in Clause 36, that, " con- sidering the great complexity of the sub- ject, there is probably no conceivable system of tonnage which would be free from anomalies and practical difficulties," they remark, in Clause 37, on "Dead weight" as a basis as follows:— " 37. Dead weight lasis would operate un- equally.—But a dead weight or a displacement basis for tonnage would, it appears to us, operate so unequally in respect of ships engaged in the conveyance of passengers and of light and valuable cargoes as to produce anomalies even greater than those at present complained of.

"A cargo steamer with a displacement of 1000 tons between her light and load lines would possess a tonnage and contribute to dues and charges to an extent ten times greater than a passenger, steamer of similar dimensions with a displacement of only 100 tons, and which might not only be the more valuable, but the more profitable of the two vessels." In Clause 38 they reply to the propo- sition to rectify such inequalities by a " load line," that it would only introduce a new, useless, and vexatious complication, as no passenger ship would ever be loaded to that line.

Clause 39 states that it would be neces- sary to fix such a load line by authority on each of the 39,000 vessels which con- stitute the Mercantile Marine of the British Empire. And that, if any such compulsory load line should be adopted, it should be confined to what is its proper object, viz., safety, and that it should not be mixed up with a question of tonnage.

In Clause 42 the Commissioners affirm the principle on which, the present tonnage laws are founded, and state their reasons for coming to that conclusion; and in Clause 43 they observe that the present law is defective, and requires amendment in several particulars.

As both Clauses are given in detail in our last number we need not repeat them.

In Clause 44, under nine heads, they state the various alterations in the present rules for admeasurement which they re- commend. As before stated, since these recommendations involve technicalities that would not interest the general reader we omit them, and refer those who are specially interested in them to the Report itself.

Finally, in Clause 46, the Commis- sioners recommend that the Board of Trade should be empowered to modify the several details of tonnage admeasure- ment, from time to time, to meet special and unforeseen alterations in the designs of ships. And in Clause 47, that legis- lation to carry into effect their various recommendations should not be retro- spective in its operation.

Since the reasons given by the three dissentients, Messrs. GLOVES, WAYMOUTH, and ROTHERY, who declined to sign the Report, are very lengthy, we do not pro- pose on this occasion to analyse them.

We, however, ourselves rise from the perusal of the Report with a doubt on our minds whether after all Tonnagb Ad- measurements of any kind can be made an equitable factor by which to determine the amounts of dues or taxes to be levied on ships and their cargoes; and if it could be shown that any other practicable system would more equitably do so, we cannot think that the reasons given by the Com- missioners against any change are suffi- cient, viz., that the present system is universally adopted, not only in this country, but by all the chief maritime countries of Europe, and by the United States of America, the Suez Canal Com- pany and the Danubian Commission, that the dues levied in British and many foreign ports and by the Commissioners of Lights are on our present system, that many important financial engage- ments are based on dues levied under it, and that great confusion, expense, and difficulty would arise on their adjustment to any other system.

Those reasons would be amply sufficient if there were no probability of any more equitable system being ever introduced, and they are sufficient reasons for depre- cating any hasty action which might ere long again require change; but we opine, on the other hand, that if any important improvement can be shown to be feasible the sooner it is introduced the better, for there are few great and important changes of any kind which can be effected without causing more or less serious temporary inconvenience and affecting injuriously long established interests.

The most important question then arises —Whether, after all, a tonnage law based on a roomage or space ton, or an external measurement ascertained by water dis- placement and expressed in weight tons, can be an equitable factor by which to determine the amount of dues or other taxes on shipping? 

All ordinary taxes and rates for fiscal, municipal, or other purposes are levied on property in proportion to its value. Why should not dues and taxes on shipping be assimilated to them ? Two vessels might be of equal tonnage, yet one with its cargo might.be ten times the value of the other; one might be in ballast, the other with a valuable cargo or freighted with pas- sengers, yet the amount of dues and taxes on the one would be the same as that on the other.

As regards docks or other confined spaces, where every yard of wharf or quay frontage was of great value, and enclosed areas of water space of limited extentequally so, the elements of size, i.e., length and width and of periods of occupation, would also form bases for scales of payment for use of the same, to be regulated by their Parlia- mentary Acts; but surely the value of the property itself, i.e., vessels and their cargoes, should in such cases equally do so.

We desire to pronounce no dogmatic opinion on the subject, but merely offer the suggestion for consideration, and we readily bear testimony to the great pains taken and the fair spirit displayed by the Commission, as well as to the abilities of the able men composing it, and to the great value of the information resulting from the facts and opinions elicited by their enquiries and consultations.