The Sun.
London, England, 1870-06-06 00:00:00

MR. GLADSTONE AND THE DERBY.

'The Spectator says Mr. Gladstone wat at -the Derby.
Now, the popular view of the Prime Minister seems to be
that of a bishop in domino, or else why that tone of mys-
terious enjoyment of naughtiness in which one of our con-
temporaries mentioned his expected presence on the Grand
Stand on the Derby Day, and others described his actual
presence there? The common notion is that an eccle-
siastic somehow discountenances the world by ignoring
its amusements, but that a statesman ought to know
England and England's life as thoroughly as may be
yet, none the less, popular rumour assigns to Mr. Glad-
stone in this respect more of the nature of the ecclesiastic
than of the statesman. There is a tendency to say " fie "
to him if he enters heartily into the world as it is, and it
is at the root of much of the almost personal dislike enter-
tained for him in the House, and by small sections of the
Liberal party, and by almost all the old Tories, out of it.
Men of the world don't feel that they could be quite
frank to Mr. Gladstone as to their own tastes and modes
of life without incurring some tacit reproof, some grieved
displeasure in his manner, some uncomfortable sense
that they and he belong to different worlds.
Statesmen like the late Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Glad-
-stone have always been popular amongst us, partly, no
doubt, because we all feel the germs of those fierce crav-
ing in us which produce such careers as that of the late
Marquis of Hastings. It is the self-distrust of peoples
which is apt to make popular favourites. And a nation
which is aware of its own tendency to rush headlong into
pleasure will always respect a ruler who is at most never
more than playful when he is at ease, and whose whole
spare force is reserved for those great efforts when he con.
winces his fellow-countrymen of the obligation of a duty,
of the danger of a prejudice, of the nobility of a self-
denial. After all, Mr. Gladstone at the Derby was only
face to face with that fitful licence of the English tem-
perament which makes us respect a curb and a spur so
long as these are not applied directly to ourselves, but
only indirectly through those humble servants of ours'.
whom we designate our representatives. The moral
qualities which excite enthusiasm in a nation are often
very different from, and usually much greater than, the
qualities which ensure popularity with acquaintances and
friends.

THE FUTILITY OF COMPULSORY NON-INSURANCE OF SHIPS

The Economist reminds us that the number of accidents
by sea has rapidly increased, and in consequence a vast
crop of hasty remedies have been suggested. Of some
others of these we may speak hereafter, but at present we
only propose to discuss the most popular one. It is pro-
posed that shipowners should not be allowed to insure the
full value of their vessels ; that they should be obliged to
leave a certain part—say one-third—of that value unin-

cured; and it is argued that, as shipowners would lose
this uninsured amount if their ship was lost, out of self-
nterest they will be sure to take care that no unnecessary
losses should happen. The proposers of this remedy did

not probably foresee one consequence of their plan. If
it could be worked, it would throw the ownership of
a`t into the hands exclusively of rich men, The

owners of a considerable number of vessels need not in.

sure much; the owners of very many vesssels need not
nsure at all. The number of ships which they own is
enough to secure an average. The new law, therefore,
would have no effect on them. They now take as large

a " line." as it is called, as large a share of
the risk, as the proposed law would impose
upon them ; they would, after the passing of the new Act
be in precisely the same position as they were before
it. But in the case of poor owners there would be
a great change. The owner, say, of a single vessel must
insure : he will be ruined if he loses what is perhaps his
whole property. He has no other ships to make an
average with. He must insure the only one which he has
if he is to carry on his trade. The sudden passing of such
anAct would Oblige all the small shipowners to sell their ships
at once and probably half ruin them, because such ships
would sell for very little if a sudden large supply—such as
all the ships of all the poor shipowners—were at once
thrust into the market. In practice, of course, judicious
shipowners solve all difficulties to their own satisfaction.
They set aside a certain sum annually for wear and tear :
they can tell how much of the sums remitted should be so
applicable to deterioration, and how much are properly
profit on the different voyages of the ship—how much in
a word should be charged to capital and how much to re-
venue. But what court could ever do this, or what law
could ever say how it was to be done ? Probably no two
shipowners do it exactly in the same way as it is, and it
must always vary according to the sort of ship and their
durability. You cannot hope to prevent wrecks by saying
that shipowners should not insure the whole value of their
vessel, because when you come to facts and instances, you
could not discover, or agree on a rule for discovering,
what the " legally insurable " value of a vessel is to be.