The Sun.
London, England, 1858-04-20 00:00:00

casualties on the East Coast during .1857, briefly
but accurately described by him as "a very large

." This,'

proportion." Observe what follows—
writes the Surveyor-General, " may in some mea-
sure, no doubt, be attributable to the great num-
ber of vessels passing and repassing along that
coast ; but the chief causes appear to be—the diffi-
cult and intricate navigation incidental to the
rocks and sands with which that coast abounds, the
want of harbours of refuge, and the dangerous
aysteni of 'follow the leader' constantly practised
by colliers and coasters, whereby reference to

charts, the use of the lead, and the necessity for
laying down courses are neglected." Without
any doubt whatever there is a terrible proportion
of the aggregate loss to be attributed variously
to the difficulty and intricacy of the navigation,
as well as to this deplorable neglect in regard to
the laying down of courses, the use of the lead,
and the reference to charts—but, beyond all
question, the most fertile source of danger to the
vessels traversing the waters of the German Ocean
to and fro along the east coast of England is--.
the lack of additional harbours of refuge. In
order to recognise this upon the instant, and, as
it were, at a single glance, it is only necessary to
look at the admirable, yet at the same time really
frightful, Wreck Chart for 1857, prefixed to the
report, and compiled from the authentic testi-
mony of the Board of Trade Register. Along all
that coast, from the Orkney Islands to the entrance
of the Channel, but more particularly from Tarbet
Ness to the South Foreland, the evidences
of wreaks, strandings, founderings, collisions,
and other casualties, are something absolutely
frightful. The most fearful amount of catastro-
phise occurring between Yarmouth and Gorleeton,
between Seaton Carew and Hartlepool, between
Fiamborough-head and Bridlington, but most of
all between Seaham and Sunderland. Assuredly
more remains to be done with a view to the sal-
vage of life from shipwreck than has yet been
attempted along the coasts of the United King-
dom. For it cannot for an instant be regarded
as adequate to this end—the expenditure of
5,0201. 14s. 3d. upon the maintenance of life-
boats, rocket and mortar apparatus, &c., besides
a comparative trifle upon the distribution as re-
wards of money, medals, telescopes, and chro-
nometers. In acting thus we are only following out
the " penny wise and pound foolish" principle.
Salvage through life- boats, rocket and mortar appa-
ratus, rewards, and so forth, down through all
the various sections of this elaborated catalogue,
ough', in reason, to be subordinate, or subsidiary
rather to the more imperial enterprise of construct-
ing new harbours of refuge wherever experience
proves them to be most glaringly requisite. By
acting thus we shall be acting both humanely and
economically. It is an enterprise worthy of the
greatest maritime power on the globe—and one,
the continued neglect of which, is in an extraor•
dinary degree discreditable to the name and fame
of the British nation and Government.

We are sorry Lord DERBY should differ from
Lord STANLEY on the subject of Church Rates ;
unhappily he differs from but little, if at all,
more than the two ex-Premiers in the House of
Commons. The committee of laymen, who waited
on Lord DERBY yesterday, elicited from him very
similar remarks to those which either of the two

' Whig Lords would have made to the same gentle-
men. The battle, therefore, now lies entirely
with the people, and the independent Members ;
if they do their part as they ought the abolition
of Church Rates will, at least, advance by an
important stage this year. Lord DERBY pre-
dicted that Sir JOHN TRELINTNEY'S Bill would
come up to the House of Peers, " and unfortu-
nately be added to those questions which pass one
House, but do not pass the other." This, how-
ever, is a stage which every Reform must pass.
Rejection by the House of Lords from one or two
years to ten or twenty, according to the degree of
popular pressure, is a part of the necessary course
for every measure of civil or religious liberty.
All the more important is it that every Libe-
ral member should be at his post on Wednesday
when Sir JOHN TRELAWNEY'S Bill is to be read a
second time. Everything depends on the House
of Commons' majorities. Resistance in the Upper i
House depends on the votes of the Lower House.
The question is one in which great numbers feel a
strong personal interest, and if members who
make loud professions of liberality wish to be re-
garded by their constituencies as honest in mak-
ing them, they must be at their posts. It will
nut do to be absent, nor Is it very respectful on
a decidedly popular question to pair off, except
from inevitable necessity. We trust that the
majority of 53 for the first reading of the bill
will be considerably increased on its second read-
ing. The solemn affirmation of the principle of
the measure ought to be by as large a majority as
possible.

Several amendments will be brought forward.
Besides the motion for the rejection of the Bill,
several will be moved on its going into committee,
all of which must, of course, be dealt with by the
supporters of the Bill. Mr. GRIFFITHS has one,
Mr. PULLER. another, Mr. BUXTON another, but
they all aim, more or less, offensively to perpetu-
ate the old nuisance in whole or in part. Liberal
Members must be in their places, and see the
measure carried in its integrity.