After the close of the war with Bonaparte, when privateering was a thing of the past, and convoys of frigates were no longer required, the shipping trade of England rapidly increased; each Register was impelled to keep pace with its rival in adding to its number of ships registered, and the expense of surveys increased in proportion, the number of subscribers remaining but little altered. This was the beginning of the end. By the time that a fourth of the present century had elapsed, the rival Registers were in a hopeless condition; but ten years more of trouble and dispute had to pass ere differences were adjusted, jealousies set at rest; and the ‘Red’ and the ‘Green’ now united, commenced a fresh career of usefulness under the title of ‘Lloyd’s Register of British and Foreign Shipping,’ the new departure dating from January 1835. The Committee of management of the new Register was supposed to represent in equal proportions the interests of the shipowners, shippers, and underwriters, and, so far as London was concerned, it doubtless did so. With, however, that preference for men and things metropolitan, not unknown yet on the banks of the Thames, the interests of the other shipping ports of the United Kingdom received scant recognition, and the result was the perpetuation of grievances, the effects of which have lasted to our own day. Of much greater importance than the mere union of the rival Registers was the adoption of the system of surveying and classification, which, although improved in detail to an extent then undreamt of, is in operation still. It was settled that henceforth vessels were to be classed on their own merits as at date of survey; that the class should be fixed by the committee on the report of the surveyor; that vessels built with a view to class should be under survey during the course of construction; and that the shipowner should pay the survey fees.
At the date of the founding of Lloyd’s Register, and for untold generations before, the one material used for building ships was wood. Long experience had made its properties common knowledge, and it might reasonably be supposed that shipbuilders would long since have come to an agreement as to the dimensions, say, of the ribs, keel, or planking of a ship of given size; such, however, was far from being the case. Owing, possibly, in part to the fact of ships built at one port being assumed inferior to those built at another, and the builders accepting the situation, and certainly in part to the fact that the rule of thumb was then the leading rule in British naval architecture, the practice in one part of the country differed widely from that in another. To induce the adoption of a uniform scale of ship scantlings founded on the best practice was one of the first tasks attempted by the Committee; but while its members were yet considering the proportions of wooden ships, an influence was at work in the world that was shortly to render their labours of small account. Along with the old familiar click of the calker’s mallet, the dwellers by river-banks began to hear mingle a new sound, the rattle of the riveter’s hammer; and by the time Lloyd’s Register had completed its tenth year of work, the Great Britain had crossed the Atlantic, and the Iron Age had come. The ship-designer found his business brought back at a single step to the experimental stage, and the Committee and surveying staff of Lloyd’s Register found that they had a new business to learn. It is probable that every branch of human industry has been, at one period or another of its history, the subject of trade secrets; iron shipbuilding in its earlier days was no exception, and, as no builder thought it his interest to initiate Lloyd’s Register, that body had no share in the development of the iron ship. This was probably the best arrangement; the days of competitive tenders and ‘poor man’s ships’ were yet in the future; and the men who launched the Great Britain, the Persia, and the Great Eastern, were more in a position to teach than to be taught. In 1844, Lloyd’s Register agreed, for the first time, to give the A1 class to iron ships built under their survey, on the surveyors’ report that they were of good and substantial materials and workmanship; and eleven years later, their first rules for iron ship-construction were issued.
Landsmen who voyaged in the wooden ships of the past were but too familiar with the creaking that went on without intermission whenever weather of a certain degree of roughness was met with. This was due to a slight rubbing of the timbers one on another, and was no sign of weakness, it being impossible with a yielding material like wood to drive bolts absolutely tight. The amount of straining and actual distortion that a wooden ship might undergo and yet remain fairly seaworthy, was astonishing; and a go-ahead skipper preferred a springy ship to a stiff one. With iron, the conditions were entirely changed; rigidity proved essential to safety, and loose fastenings were fatal. It was this necessity for rigidity that made it possible to frame constructive rules from the observation of the behaviour of comparatively new ships, old and tried ones not being then in existence. On examining an iron ship after a single voyage, the surveyor, provided always the painter had not been at work before his arrival, could point unchallenged to the weak points of her structure—started joints, cracked plates, and bent bars, telling their tale only too plainly. For reasons which are not far to seek, but which need not be entered upon here, the rules for the construction of iron vessels issued by Lloyd’s Register in 1855 did not meet the success their framers intended. Greatly improved rules were issued in 1863; but it was not until 1870 that the Committee emancipated itself from various obsolete ideas, and, under the guidance of the honoured gentleman who now holds the position of Secretary to the Register, issued rules in the form now existing. Various editions of these rules appeared from time to time, each more comprehensive than its predecessor; for some years past they have been issued annually; and those now current leave little to be desired so far as completeness is concerned. Lloyd’s Register grants three leading classes—namely, 100A, 90A, and 80A; the numeral 1, making 100A1, being added to keep up the time-honoured classification mark. The system of classification a century ago provided, as we have seen, for differing qualities of outfit in ships otherwise bearing the same character, and the numerals 1, 2, 3, &c. were used accordingly; but the fact has come to be recognised that a good ship with a bad or insufficient outfit is practically a bad ship, and the 100A class is not granted unless the outfit be up to the requirements of the numeral 1.
In addition to the above-named classes, Lloyd’s Register will survey and grant the class A for a vessel designed for almost any desired service, the plans being submitted for their approval; for instance, the swift steamers that carry the mails in connection with the South-Eastern Railway are classed ‘A. Folkestone and Boulogne Passenger Service.’ These special classes, however, are not taken advantage of to any great extent.—Two classes of surveys are held—the ‘Ordinary’ and the ‘Special.’ The first consists in a given number of visits paid to a ship at certain periods during construction; the second, in a systematic inspection of the vessel at short intervals, from the time of laying the keel to that of certifying to the anchors and cables being the proper weight. The first of these, as might be imagined, is open to various drawbacks; and few shipowners who desire a class at Lloyd’s hesitate to incur the somewhat greater expense of a ‘special survey,’ which, as it includes the machinery also if the vessel be a steamer, practically saves the expense of a private inspector. Lloyd’s survey only extends to the structure of the ship, and takes no account of the fitting-up of the cabins and other work connected with the accommodation or comfort of crew and passengers; the class meaning simply that, in the opinion of the Committee, the ship is strong and seaworthy. The work of surveying is carried on in the United Kingdom by about one hundred surveyors, who give their whole time to it; in addition, about three-fourths of this number scattered throughout the world give their services in part. The Committee of management, whose headquarters is in Cornhill, consists of fifty members, representing the different ports of the country, although by no means in proportion to their relative standing, London securing about half the total representation. The Register Book, which represents the results of the labours of Committee and surveyors, is a ponderous volume, and gives the particulars of all the vessels now afloat that have received Lloyd’s classification, in addition to the particulars of numbers of other vessels not so classed; in fact, the Register Book is a great shipping directory, the ship, not the owner, being the leading feature.
Lloyd’s Register is not alone in the field of surveying and classifying ships. Liverpool up till a year ago had a registry of its own, the ‘Liverpool Underwriters’ Registry.’ This has now united itself with Lloyd’s Register, a fact which, for some reasons, is to be regretted. Paris is the headquarters of the ‘Bureau Veritas,’ an undertaking whose classification is in repute in Scandinavia, North Germany, the Netherlands, and France; and which maintains a staff of surveyors in the United Kingdom. This undertaking is not a representative one, and on this ground has been objected to. It is doing useful work, nevertheless; and its system of classification is superior to Lloyd’s, inasmuch as it takes into account the service for which the vessel is intended. A kindred institution to the ‘Bureau Veritas’ looks after the shipping of Italy, and is known in this country as the ‘Italian Veritas;’ while the ‘American Lloyd’s’ controls to a certain extent the building of ships on the Delaware, but is unknown in this country, on account of the well-known navigation laws by which only native-built craft can sail under the stars and stripes.
Classification Societies are not an unmixed benefit to the community, still less have they an unmixed influence for good on the design of ships. Theoretically perfect rules would proportion the strength of every individual ship to the work it had to do; but, as Lloyd’s Committee, through whose hands the designs for over eight hundred ships probably pass in the course of a year, have no possible time for going into such detail, standard types of vessel have been adopted, the designs submitted being compared with these on the basis of their dimensions alone. The natural result of this is that ships are in many cases built to suit Lloyd’s type; and the art of the ship-designer but too often has degenerated into getting the maximum of advantage out of certain dimensions which are known to bring the vessel just within the limits of one of these types.
In the days gone by, ships were built for a certain trade, and kept at it, the East Indiaman, the West Indiaman, and the Atlantic packet seldom interfering with each other. The leading steamship Companies naturally adhere to this system still; but, during recent years, hundreds of individually owned ships have been set afloat, designed for no special trade, but simply to carry the maximum cargo on the minimum cost wherever a freight offers itself. It is largely from the necessity of making its rules applicable to these privateers of trade that the frequently grumbled-at oppressiveness of Lloyd’s Register arises. This brings us to notice that some first-class steamship Companies do not class their vessels at all; and it may cause surprise to many to know that of those steamers whose rapid passages across the Atlantic have made their names familiar, the majority are not A1 at Lloyd’s. The reason for this is simply, that a skilful designer who knows thoroughly the requirements of the service for which a ship is intended can always turn out a better and more economical vessel than one built to class, a fact which more of the leading steamship Companies will doubtless come to recognise before long. The rules of Lloyd’s Register for the construction of iron vessels are growing in stringency from year to year; a vessel built to class ten years ago, and which has proved her efficiency by doing the work for which she was designed during all that period without a complaint, would, if built to-day, require a large percentage of additional weight put into her structure to bring her strength up to the demands of the current rules. That this is so is due to the fact that, up till quite recently, Lloyd’s Register has taken account of one element only out of the several that the question of the safety of a ship on the ocean involves. For years past, the aim of the Committee has been to take from the shipbuilder more and more of the responsibility which he at one time bore for the strength of the vessels he builds, until now his share is practically nil; while it has been but too evident for years past, from the disclosures that now and again have been elicited before the Commissioner of Wrecks, that a good ship may be badly stowed, overloaded, or undermanned, and, under such circumstances, be in much greater danger from sea-risks than a far inferior ship in good hands.
The aim of Lloyd’s Register is the protection of the shippers and underwriters against undue risks, and the present high rates of marine insurance show that this protection is not what it might be. If the trouble and expense now devoted to securing strong vessels are not to continue to be thrown away, as they certainly are at present in a fair percentage of cases, the Committee will require to take steps to insure that a ship bearing their highest class shall not take the sea with a cargo badly stowed, an insufficient crew, or too little freeboard. The question of freeboard is already engaging attention; the other points cannot long be left in their present state; and the day will then come when shippers will think with wonder on the times when premiums at the rate of ten per cent. were paid for insuring cargoes in ships that were 100A1 at Lloyd’s.
DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS.
The Agricultural Department has issued two Reports by Mr C. Whitehead, F.L.S., F.G.S., dealing with Destructive Insects. The first of these treats of ‘Insects Injurious to Hop-plants.’ In the opinion of the writer, there is an increased and increasing risk of loss and destruction from injurious insects to many of the crops cultivated in this country. We scarcely grow anything exempt from the ravages of these pests. They attack corn of all kinds, fruit-trees, hop-plants, clover, turnips, mangold-wurzel, &c. Although some kinds are well known and long known, others are new, or, at anyrate, they have only recently been noticed. In certain instances they appear to have been imported with the plant, as, for example, the mangold-wurzel fly, Anthomyia betæ, which, within the last five years—contrary to the opinion of Curtis, who, writing in 1859, thought its injuries would not be of much consequence—has wrought much mischief. The turnip-fly again, which originally fed upon charlock and other cruciferous plants, has now quitted these, because the turnip supplies more suitable food. With its increased cultivation, this fly has multiplied enormously, as the farmer knows to his cost, for, in seasons favourable to its development, it sometimes destroys whole fields and causes great loss.