that the question is constantly arising as to whether science can. be applied to meet the new condition of things. Individual experience if it be strictly applicable is always the most valuable; but may not science, which is merely general experience systematised, be useful where on account of the variety of conditions. no one experience is sufficiently extensive to serve the purpose. The question then arises-Can anything be done to make science available practically in the loading and management of merchant ships as regards their stability?

The Daphne disaster had in itself very little connection with the general question of the stability of merchant ships, nor do the special conditions which led to that vessel's deficient stability at the time of launching necessarily point to any defect in her seagoing qualities. A similar accident happened to another vessel on the Clyde a short time ago, but in that case the mishap stopped short of disaster. The Hammonia which, just after being launched, went over to a considerable angle and did not recover herself, proved, when her curve of stability was got out, to be subject to as rapid a loss of righting power as the Daphne; but while being so deficient in stability at launching draught that in this condition her maximum righting moment is at 33° and her stability vanishes altogether at 53°, it appears that calculations as to her condition at load draught have proved that she is a vessel with sufficient stability. Sir Edward Reed's conclusion, as regards the Daphne accident is that in respect of instability of vessels at launching draught there is a danger which has not been appreciated in the past, and has not been made the subject of scientific investigation. Vessels at ordinary loaded draughts are comparatively safe with small initial stability, because when inclined they gain stability so rapidly, and hence it has been usually considered to be safe to launch ships with a small metacentric height, and one of the witnesses on the enquiry did not hesitate to say that before the experience furnished by the Hammonia and Daphne accidents it would have been considered safe to launch with any positive stability at all."

66

While it may be quite true that no scientific treatment of this particular question has been made public before the Daphne enquiry, it is, we think, quite another thing to say that its practical bearings

have not been considered and appreciated. One of the old traditions: of the shipbuilder has been that no moveable dead-weights should be on board the ship at the time of the launch. In the hurry and bustle of modern competition this old maxim has been disregarded very frequently, and long immunity from accident has tended to perpetuate neglect of the old precautions. Similarly the specially dangerous condition of vessels in the extreme light condition has been well understood, and every shipmaster knows that a crank vessel when very light may completely capsize under conditions where an equally crank loaded ship would simply take a list and remain permanently inclined at a moderate angle. We cannot grant that the mere enunciation in scientific terms of a previously well-known fact is of itself a scientific discovery.

In looking about for possible causes of the disaster, various suggestions were made by actual observers and others, which were all carefully considered by the Commissioner. One was that there is in the River Clyde, at certain states of the tide, an up current above at the same time that there is a down current beneath. This suggestion being considered in connection with the evidence of the engineer to the Clyde Trust, was dismissed as not being in accordance with the observed facts of the case. It was further suggested that in the launching of a ship after she has lost the support of the ground-ways, and before she is wholly waterborne, there is a passing phase of instability. This view was advanced by M. Benjamin Normand, of Havre, and in reply it is urged with justice that "the duration of this state of things is so brief, that it can hardly have any greater effect than that of setting up some little inclination, which probably accounts in part for the occasional slight rolling of a ship after launching. No doubt the passing phase of instability which the just-launched ship may momentarily experience is deserving of consideration, especially when other circumstances co-operate with it, but where the ship was well launched as the Daphne was, and takes the water with a proper velocity as she did, its effect is in my judgment too small and too transient to furnish the necessary force for capsizing the ship."

While thus disposing of these suggestions as to the cause of the capsize, and at the same time coming to the conclusion that

the vessel had a metacentric height of four inches, Sir Edward Reed does not in his report make any suggestion as to what was the actual inclining force. It would appear that but a very small force was necessary because there were elements of danger in the vessel in the shape of weights which, given an inclination of moderate amount, would move to leeward, and would be sufficient to use up all the righting power of the ship. On this point it is said: "I have made numerous calculations showing what changed conditions would exist upon various assumptions as to weights moved; but although there were over 30 tons of loose weights (including men) on board, I will content myself with assuming that only 15 tons moved across the decks and holds, through an average distance of 15 feet a moderate assumption. This, however, would have sufficed to incline the ship permanently at an angle of over 30 degrees from the upright, and in carrying her over to that angle would have accumulated sufficient work to nearly, but not quite absorb, the remaining stability. The vessel would, on this assumption, have ceased to roll over, and even have returned slightly towards the upright position; but it is not to be expected that the vessel was watertight up to the top deck; indeed, it is certain that she was not, and that some water found its way on to the main deck, and this fact, taken together with the further shifting of weights, which would occur at so large an inclination, would cause her to be carried over again. At 50, the water would flow over the bulwarks, and complete the capsize." With the state of things thus, described, it is evidently not necessary to go far to seek the cause of a small primary inclination, from which the capsize would inevitably result. Whether such a cause might be found in the action of the water upon the propeller, in the effect of the vessel being brought round in the water by the drag-chains, or by the action of waves set up by the sudden displacement of water in a narrow river, is obviously only of secondary importance. The lesson to be learnt is, that the special dangers connected with launching must be provided for by proper ballasting, by the securing of all heavy articles on board, and by strictly limiting the number of persons in the vessel during the launch.

The question of stability, however, as concerning launching is obviously of much less importance than the larger one opened up by Sir Edward Reed in his remarks upon the general question. On this point he says:-"The general belief that a high-sided ship having some initial stability will, as she inclines, gather additional stability, and will retain some even at very large angles, has exercised a widespread influence upon modern mercantile shipbuilding, and has greatly encouraged people to be satisfied with very small initial stability, in some cases with none at all, and even less than none. Many steamships of large tonnage have been built of late years, for influential steam companies and other owners, which ships are wholly incapable of floating upright without the aid of ballast or of cargo, and which cannot be unloaded in dock without being held upright by hawsers attached to the shore. Such ships, even when capable of floating unballasted without capsizing, can only do so by lolling over at large angles of inclination, and there finding a position of stable equilibrium. When carefully watched over, and stowed with suitable cargoes, these ships can usually be made safe at sea, and sometimes even safer than ships with larger initial stability but less rangea circumstance to which undue prominence has perhaps been given, and which has diverted many from the grave elements of danger which much more often are associated with small initial stability."

We have in these pages more than once protested against the undue importance which has of late years been attached to range of stability in merchant ships. Just as large initial stability must to secure safety be associated with proper range, so large range will not make up for deficient metacentric height. There is always some part of the cargo or coals which can shift, and with small initial stability the vessel gets a list, and if in that condition she meets with bad weather, the consequence is disaster.

Further, the very proportions which conduce to small metacentric height are those which tend to secure large range, so that if, in answer to a charge of crankness against a ship, the plea is. made that she has large range, it is much the same thing as directly admitting the defect.

One reason for the existence of many vessels of low initial stability is found in the notion now exploded that speed depended largely upon smallness of beam. The last few years have seen a beneficial change in the proportion of beam to depth, and a better state of things as regards stability, especially in the case of vessels built for cargo rather than passengers. In many of the largest ocean steamers, the proportions even of new vessels are against their stability, but in their case, owing to the diversified character of the cargo, and in some cases to the existence of well-divided ballast tanks, it is easy to keep the actual stability of the ship under control. Such vessels, too, in regular trades are stowed voyage after voyage by the same stevedore, and thus there is every opportunity of correcting the stability by proper stowage.

In commenting upon the question of the stability of merchant vessels, Sir Edward Reed made some remarks which appeared to indicate that the importance of that question was imperfectly appreciated in enquiries into losses at sea. The Wreck Commissioner has since pointed out that this is not the case, and it is understood by a subsequent explanation that the reference was rather to the fact that evidence is not forthcoming as to stability than that the question is not considered. It has been the usual practice in these enquiries for the Board of Trade to call evidence as to fact, the Court being constituted so as to form its own opinion by the aid of nautical or scientific assessors. Evidence as to stability is difficult to obtain, because owners do not think the information of sufficient value to induce them to get it in the first instance. After the ship is lost her conditions of stability may be obtained approximately from the drawings, but it is obvious that such information got up for the purpose of evidence is less valuable than an exact account of the vessel's stability got out by experiment for use in loading her. It is only just to the Wreck Commissioner to point out that in enquiry after enquiry he has directed attention to the question of stability, and has as often expressed his regret that shipowners did not make it their business to obtain exact accounts of the stability of their ships.

In the Austral enquiry, it certainly appeared that the scientific aspects of the case were pushed so far as to put out of sight the plain and simple causes of the accident. The crude notion