The Sun.
London, England, 1864-04-29 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.—In rejecting Mr. Lindsay's motion for
the construction of Harbours of Refuge on Tuesday
night, the House of Commons was only exercising
the same prudent but unwelcome revision of belie.
volent but hasty conclusions which has constantly
to be exercised by every private gentleman. Six
i years ago the house had been asked in the most n.
nocent and natural way in the world whether it
would not grant money for the construction of more
Harbours of Refuge. It was, of course, supposed
that the house knew very well how great a benefit
they would be. The house had learnt, in quite as
touching terms as Mr. Lindsay used on Tuesday, the
amount of ssving in lives and properly which would
be effected if ships could always find somewhere to
eo to whenever they were in danger of being
wrecked; so that question was supposed to be
settled, and the committee were only asked toin-
quire " into the policy of making further grants et.
public money" for so admirable a purpose. The
committee were modest, and proposed that the house
should grant only part of the sum required—say a
million and a half, only an annual surplus—and get
the remaining two millions and a half supplied by
local contributions or repaid by tolls upon shipping
using the harbours. This was, as it were, just break-
ing the expense to the house; but the. committee
proposed a Royal Commission to determine the beat
places for the harbors, and the commission took
courage, and, as Sir Stafford Northcote mildly puts
it, " threw aside that part of the recommendations of
the committee that a considerable portion of theex-
pense for these harbours should be defrayedin some
way by a charge upon shipping." Or, as the charge
upon shipping would be the only source to which most
of these places could look for obtaining the requisite
money, they practically proposed that the whole
charge, amounting by the confession of the Com-
mittee, to four millions, should be borne by the
country. This was in 1859. In 1860 the House
was asked to ratify the easy promises into which it
thus seemed half betrayed ; its impulsive genero-
sity had been too recent for it to withdraw at once
from its hasty consent ; and it actually pas4ed a re-
solution calling upon Government to carry into
effect the recommendations of the Royal Commis-
sion. However, the Government had to raise money..
and to propose Budgets, and very naturally dropped
a suggestion which would have saddled each Budget
with at least a quarter of a million. So in 1862 the
interested parties began to think they must remind
the authorities again, and proposed a motion to
enforce the former resolution of 1860; but by this
time the House bad found leisure to turn round and
think about in Tnere had been a great deal of talk
about sums like a quarter of a million, and it re-
solved by 115 to 77 not to go any further in the
matter. After this the Government could not pos-
sibly be expected to stir; so on Tuesday Mr. Lind.
say thought it necessary to make one more decided
appeal, and the House, therefore, being brought to
bay, had to say by a majority of 142 to 84 that it
believed the whole proposal to he based on a mere
illusion, that Harbours of Refuge would be only of
the sliehtest possible use to our shipping, that they
would probably serve no other purpose but to
sink masses of stone and quantities of money,
and perhaps afford Sir Walter Crofton, or some
other experimentalist on ticket-of-leave-men, an
opportunity for "employing convict labour ;"
that the cost would be at the least
£10,000,000 or £12,000,000, instead of £4,000,000,
and that, in short, it could not hear of it, and
would not do it. It is obvious that the House could
not hold itself in any way bound to so vast an ex-
penditure upon the recommendation of two bodies
which had practically begged the main point in
dispute. The subsequent investigation of the Board
of Trade had enormously diminished the argument
in favour of harbours of refuge. A memorandum
issued by the Board seems, for the first time, to have
brought before the House an accurate analysis of
the probable value to shipping of these harbours,
and it was commented on with the chagrin which
was only natural in the gentlemen who found their
fancies so completely exposed by its facts. Of
course it is easy, es Mr. Lindsay did, to describe
" in touching terms" the enormous loss in men and
money which is usually incurred by shipwrecks,
but the sole question as to harbours of refuge is
what proportion of this loss would be averted by
their existence, and whether the proportion would
be sufficient to justify such an outlay. Now, from
the total number of wrecks the report in question
very properly eliminates all cases in which ships
are lost in a gale of wind in which they founder at
sea, and in which their loss may be attributed to
bad seamanship or to collisions. It is obvious
that some of these causes would be wholly unin-
fluenced by harbours of refuge, and though loss of
lite from other causes might be occasionally averted
by the nearness of a harbour, yet they are
causes in themselves controllable, and the nation
cannot possibly be expected to spend mil-
lions of money in preventing the consequences
of mere carelessness. In analyzing from time to
time the annual Wreck Returns we have often
taken occasion to dwell on another frequent cause of
shipwrecks, which in the same way cannot claim
any consideration from the public. We refer to the
notorious unseaworlhiness of many ships engaged
in or home trade. Mr. Milner Gibson pointed out
,i
onTuesday night that the majority of ships lost on
tlacEast Coast were colliers 30, 50, and even 90 years
old, and most of these were lost at a considerable
distance from the coast. One of the most remark-
able results of Mr. Gibson's analysis is the fact that
out of 570 persons drowned last year 180 were lost
on the East Coast when the wind was from the west,
so that harbours of refuge couid have been no pos-
sible use to them. An illustration to the same effect
is furnished by the recent lamentable destruction of
Yarmouth fishing boats. They were all lost at sea,
and a Government gunboat was sent to search for
them in the open sea. These little vessels could
hardly ever make a harbour in a heavy gale, and
Admiral Fitzroy's signals in preventing their ven-
turing out when there is danger, will do much more
for them than Harbours of Refuge. As for our great
shipping, the else of the Royal Charter, so unfortu-
nately instanced by Sir John Pekington, is a suffi
cient illustration of the use which such ships would
be likely to make of these harbours. The Royal
Charter was on her way up the Channel to Liver-
pool, and when the gale came on in which she
was lost she was near Holyhead, and if she had
made for the harbour she would probably have
escaped. But she had to make a quick passage, and
she pressed on for her destination, and met her
fate. These magnificent ships would only enter
Harbours of Refuge in exceptionally severe gales.
In point of fact, harbours would resolve themselves
into mere conveniences for the inferior shipping,
and that is not an object for national expenditure.
When the advantages to be gained by the proposal
have been reduced to such insignificant proportions,
it may seem superfluous to urge any further objec-
tions, but it is worth while to indicate the sort of
expense with which it is proposed to saddle the
country for so futile an object. On this point, it is
sufficiently suggestive that in one instance the Corn
nsittee's estimate for two particular harbours was
£20,000 each, whereas the Commission subse-
quently estimated the expense at £50,000 in one
case, and £75,000 in the other : and, after our ex-
perience at Ramsgate and elsewhere, few persons
will doubt that, if the original estimate was
£4,000,000, we might think ourselves lucky if
it stopped within £10,000,000. Let any one esti-
mate the effect of that sum spread over ten years
upon the taxation of the country, and then estimate
the audacitysof the proposal to burden the whole
community to that extent for the uncertain chance
of saving a small portion of the national shipping.
As to the main expense being borne by the places

at which the harboth's are to be constructed, it is
perfectly idle to talk abtei.tt it; If the harbours are
to be of any use, they ought td constructed, not
at points adapted for seats of commerce or among
centres of trade, out in the neighbourhood tef dan-
gerous coasts, where nothing would ever create a
trade, and where, therefore,there is no money to be
obtained. The only alternative is that originally
proposed by the Committee, and embodied in Sir ,
Stafford Northcote's amendment—to raise the money
by tolls on shipping. As, however, the shipowners
are confessedly opposed to the proposal, they would,
of course, avoid the harbours ss much as possible,
and by rejecting Sir Stafford Northcote's amend-
ment by a still larger majority than the original
motion, the House expressed its conviction that the
plan of levying the money by passing tolls would
be impracticable. The whole expense would in the
end have to be borne by the country. Supposing,
moreover, that the construction of these harbours
would be the boon it is represented to the shipping
trade, and that a part of the money could be ex-
torted from the rocks and stones of a place like
Wick, it would still be contrary to all our princis
pies of commercial legislation to vote millions of
money for the protection of a trade from the dangers
which are inseparable from its prosecution. If, as
Mr. Lindsay argues, the expenses of these Har-
bours of Refuge would be more than reimbursed by
the amount of capital they would save, let the ship-
; ping trade, in their own interest, construct these ,
r harbours on their own account. If they reply that
they cannot command the vast capital such a work
would require, let them ask the Government for
loans at a fair rate of interest. Mr. Milner Gibson
points out that this has already been done to a con-
siderable extent in many cases. A bill was passed by
the Government to enable them to assist Harbour
Commissioners for this very purpose, and under its
provisions nearly a million has already been
granted, and a further quarter of a million has
been applied for. It is, however, further alleged
that shipowners prefer to cover their own risks by
insurance, and that while they can protect them-
selves in this way they are indifferent to the security
of their crews and passengers. If this could be
made out, which we do not believe, it might follow
that Parliament ought to compel the shipowners to
perform their duty to their servants and the public,
but it would by no meansfollow that it ought to take
the duty off their hands. No one undervalues the
lives of our merchant sailors or our sea-travelling
countrymen. but that consideration is beside the
question. It is often the duty of the Legislature
to provide, as in the case of railways, that a trade
shall take prol er precautions to insure the safety
of the public by which it lives, but it is never the
duty of a Legislature to take those precautions
itself. All that Parliament can possibly be ex-
pected to do is to enfeece such rules as may provide
hat any trade or craft does not pursue its own in-
terests too grossly to the neglect of the public safety
and public rights. Above all, it is tl'e business of
the trade itself to provide for its own ins crests and
security. All that can be done is to give it a tem-
porary help, and this the shipping trade is offered
by the Act we have referred to. But to carry out
Mr. Lindsay's proposal would be to give a bonus to
the shipping interest which no other branch of trade
or commerce has ever had the assuranco to ask for.
HERALD.—The House of Commons took up last
night the theme which engaged the House of Lords
on Tuesday. Mr. Peacocke gave the law officers
of the Crown a direct challenge to defend the in-
structions emanating from them by virtue of which
the Tuscaloosa was seized, to be released soon after
because the seizure was found to be perfectly un-
justifiable, The challenge could not be evaded, and
both Solicitor and Attorney-General stood up to
admit that the instructions were not so full and ex-
plicit an they ought to have been, to declare that
fresh instructions for colonial governors were under
consideration, but that the point was so nice that no
decision had yet been come to about them, and in
the same breath to defend the instructions already
issued as being perfectly in accordance with the
rules of international law, and contend that neither
Sir Baldwin Walker nor the authorities at home
could have acted in any other manner. "We did
wrong, but we were quite right," that is the argu-
ment which the legal advisers of the Government
have the courage to address to the House of Com-
mons, accepting in their own excuse precisely the
pitiful plea of Earl Russell on Tuesday, that whether
Sir B. Walker acted according to law or not, he was
justified in all his proceedings, because "common
sense" urged that they ought to be legal. This is
the substance of the argument of law officers who
took upon themselves to deprecate the discussion of
the question on the ground that it was extremely
improper for the House, influenced as it probably
would be by party motives, to pronounce an opinion
upon a question of international law. Ph;sicians,
heal yourselves. Could there be a more scandalous
example of party feeling distorting men's judgmeots
than this attempt of two gentlemen occupying a
position of immense responsibility to vindicate what
they knew to be wrong in order to serve the inte-
rests of the party with which they are connected ?
Talk of a perversion of judgment from party pre-
judice ; we had that perversion, to use the mildest
possible term, exhibited last night by the Attorney
and Solicitor-General to an extent happily seldom
paralleled. It is the policy of the Government—its
necessity, perhaps—to grovel before the Federals.
To conciliate them it must' whilst professing to be
neutral in the conteel, violate all the rules of neu-
trality and law in their favour; and, unfortunately
for the honour of a professio2 which has been wont
to supply guardians of the law, it has found legal
advisers who are eager to assist it in this dirty
work, and devote all their ingenuit; to discover
excuses for the perversion of the law. Sir. Roundell
Palmer and Sir R. P. Collier seem to ce'usider
themselves advocates retained upon behalf of the
Administration, and to hold it as their sole duty to
make out a case for their clients—to have, in fact,
precisely the same obligations as the gentlemen
who are engaged to defend a culprit at the Mid-
dlesex sessions. That was not the view which
their predec,?ssors took of their functions; it is
not the constitt:tional view of the offices of
Attorney and sc,ii,:tor General. No doubt the
h
Government finds it extra aely inconvenient that
cus
this question should be ch.: sad. We can
readily understand that very devotLf wishes have
been offered up in Cabinet Councils, and in
more secret conclaves, that the Tuscaloosa ha,.' been
" farther"—from the Cape of Good Hope or at:v
British possession. But the convenience of the
Government is not the law of the house, and Earl
Russell has most emphatically laid it down that no
argumentunz ab Ineonvenienti can b,3 offered in bar
to a just contention. The convenience of flee Go-
vernment is not the concern of the House of Com-
mons, which has to watch that no injustice be
perpetrated, or if the injustice should be done to
enforce redress for it, or at least prevent its recur-
rence. We agree with the Solicitor General that
such a question should be approached in a judicial
spirit, apart from any sympathies which may be
entertained on the one aide or the other; and the
violation of this rule is just the complaint we make
against her Majesty's Government and her law
officers. They never have approached this question,
or any one of the other questions between Federals
and Confederates, in a judicial and impartial spirit.
They have always been governed by their preju-
dices, and instead of holding the balance even and
maintaining the law, they have done their utmost
to win the favour of the Federals, and have scan-
dalously perverted the law with that purpose. The
very speech which the Solicitor General prefaced
with this appeal to an impartial and judicial exa-
mination is a rank specimen of partiality, partisan-
ship, and distortion of the law to serve party in-
terests. Haw inconvenient Mr. Peacocke s resolu-
tion was deemed by the Government was shown
clearly by the mean attempt to count the house out.
Mr. Mackinnon, who undertook this honourable
piece of business, is one of the most devoted fol-
lowess of the Government, and the rumour has
been circulated by its own organs that he is to receive
the reward of his zeal in a peerage. Such are the
services to their country of the men whom the'Whigs
raise to Vie Upper House. There can be no doubt,
therefore, that a count out was planned by the
Government. It failed ; but the absence of many
of the members of the Opposition at the division
saved them the censure they so richly deserved.
The result, however, cannot be claimed by them as
a victory. They were only excused because they
confessed that they had done wrong, and promised
to behave better for the future.

COMPLIMENT FOR COMPLIMENT.—In gratitude
for the English reception of Garibaldi, a grand demonstra-
tion and serenade took place on the 19th, at Genoa, before
the house of the British Consul.

Persons who have been in the habit of paying weekly as
borrowers of Sewing Machines will do well to apply at once
and become members of Messrs. Watts and Co.'s Sewing
Machine Clubs. By so doing they will not only save the
money they now foolishly throw away, but at the same time
secure to themselves the possession of one of the best and
most celebrated sewing machines in the werld. Every in-
formation given on application; or by letter addressed, with
a stamped envelope, to Messrs. Watts and Co., 12, Beaufort-
buildings, Strand, London, W.C., where mem rs are en-
rolled daily between 10 and 4 ; Saturdays, 10 ant 1

[ADVERTISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's Pills.—Excellent Re-
vivers.—The resources of medicine and !chemistry were
long and fruitlessly tried before they yielded a remedy
which could overcome disorders of the stomach-and nerves,
till Professor Hollows), discovered his purifying and tonic
Pills. They are the safest and surest correctives of indi-
gestion, heartburn, flatulency, torpidity of the liver, twitch-
ings, nervous fancies, despondency, low spirits, and de-
clining strength. Holloway's Pills supersede all erroneous
actions in the body, and so strengthen and support the
system, that disease departs, and leaves the patient little,
if at all, shaken. This is the grand aim and object of
medical art—to regulate disordered functions without
damaging the constitution by the remedy; sad :admirably
is this end attained by Holloway's Fills.