The Sun.
London, England, 1866-03-21 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.—The total loss of a first-rate passenger
ship on the high seas is, happily, so rare an event
that a certain degree of mystery still attaches to the
fate of the London. The foundering of such a vessel,
classed " Aa 1" on Lloyd's List, but five clays after
the commencement of her voyage, in a gale which
smaller craft rode out with safety, and in which one
of her own boats was able to live, constitutes a lead-
ing case among nautical disasters, and justifies to
some extent the feeling of dissatisfaction which has
been so freely expressed. This feeling has not been
allayed by the publication of the official report to the
Board of Trade, which imputes no blame to any one.
Nothing can be more natural than a tendency to
fasten the responsibility of a great misfortune on
somebody, and the relatives of those who perished
in the London may be excused for indulging a' be-
lief that if the builders, owners, and officers, and all
other persons connected with the ship, had done
their duty she would never have gone down. At
first there was a disposition to suspect the survivors
of having deserted their perishing shipmates and
fellow-passengers ; then Capt. Martin's seamanship
was severely condemned, and a great variety of ob-
jections have since been alleged against the build,
equipment, and seagoing condition of the vessel.
These last have lately received an unexpected con-
firmation from the written evidence of one who lost
his own life in the London. Among the papers
washed ashore on the coast of France was one bear-
ing the signature of Mr. H. J. Denis, and contain-
ing the following memorandum in pencil :—" Bay
of Biscay, Thursday, 10 o'clock.—Ship too heavily
laden for its size, and too crank. Windows stove in
and water coming in everywhere. Storm not too
violent for a ship in good condition." Upon this
pencil note, made within an hour or two of the final
catastrophe, the writer's brother-in-law, Mr. High-
ton, has founded a demand, very natural under the
circumstances, for further investigation, and it fur-
nished Sir J. Pakinton with a good text for his elabo-
rate review of the Board of Trade report on Mon-
day night. Like Mr. Highton, Sir John chaaracterises
the inquiry as " a mockery and a delusion," partly
because counsel employed by relatives of the vic-
tims were not allowed to cross-examine witnesses,
and partly because the fair inference was not drawn
by Mr. Trail from the evidence before him. The
former point turns chiefly on the construction of
an Act of Parliament. Mr. Traill's opinion was,
that as in this instance there was no question of
suspending a master's certificate, and no person on
his defence, it would have been improper to allow
cross-examination. Sir John urged, on the other
hand, and we think justly, that inasmuch as it was
clearly within Mr. Traill's discretion to allow it, he
should not have refused it in a case of great public
interest, though no individual happened to be in the
the strict legal sense on his trial. This point, how-
ever, is of secondary importance if substantial justice
was really done. The chief object of Sir John's
speech, as well as of h second letter addressed to
ourselves by Mr. Highton, was to show that justice
was not done, and that Messrs. Wigram, if not
Captain Martin, though " whitewashed " by the
Board of Inquiry, were greatly to blame for the loss
of the London. In support of this view, Sir John
Pakington and Mr. Hinton contended, in effect,
that the London, though a ship of the highest
pretensions, was ill-constructed, ill-equipped, ill-
found, ill-manned, and ill-navigated. " The
prevailing idea," says the latter, " seems to be that
she was too narrow in the beam for her great
length ;" and he also alleges, on the authority of
professional informants, that her centre of gravity
was placed too low, and that she was altogether de-
ficient in buoyancy, overladen, " overmasted," and
" flat-sided." Much stress has also been laid on
her being " unprovided with storm-sails," as well
as on her having put to sea " with her royal masts
on end and topgallant yards across," on her
scuppers having been defective or else choked up
with coal, and on there being no adequate provision
for signals of distress. Sir John attaches much
importance to the circumstance of a large propor-
tion of her crew being foreigners and unable to
understand the word of command. Others object
to the way in which she was handled by the captain,
but here the nautical critics are somewhat at issue
with each other. One insists that he should have
made all snug aloft and on deck, and kept the ship
head to wind, with just enough way on to steer by;
another contends that, but for the want of storm-
sails and other defects in her structure and lading,
she ought to have been kept before the wind, as
" the well-known East Indiamen" usually are—an
assertion which, to say the least, surprises us. These
are matters on which seamen alone can form a com-
petent opinion. We must, however, in fairness, set
against this volunteer testimony that of the wit-
nesses examined by Mr. Trail and his assessors, six
')f whom had been " connected with the construc-
tion of the ship or her machinery, or in the stowage
of her cargo," six were surveyors who had inspected
her, three others were emigration officers, and the
rest persons of practical experience in shipbuilding.
The general effect of their replies as to the structure
of the London is summed up by Mr. Traill in the
language of Lloyd's surveyor, that she was " in all
respects a good vessel." It is true, that her length
in proportion to her breadth was almost eight to one,
while that of the finest sailing vessels in the East
Indian trade does not, we believe, exceed five to
one. The proportion of ten to one, however, is by
by no means unknown in these days, and Mr.
Samuda testifies that it is still an open question among
shipbuilders what is th e best proportion for safety. So,
again, as to the lading of the London the weight of
authority is more evenly balanced than Sir John
Pakington would lead us to suppose. One im-
portant witness who gave evidence on the Board
of Trade inquiry thought she aught not to have
drawn more than 18 feet 9 inches, but three others
maintained that a deep load-line of 20 feet 8 inches
was not too great, and one stated that he should
have passed her even if her draught had been a foot
greater. It is certain that Indiamen of less tonnage
sometimes draw more water on leaving the Hooghly,
and it should be remembered that the daily con-
sumption of coals, water, and provisions on board a
passenger steamer lightens her very rapidly. On
the other hand, it must be allowed that several ex-
perienced and independent observers noticed a
marked want of buoyancy in the London, and a
passenger who had sailed in her before complained
of the very same thing. Nor can it be doubted that,
however much in accordance with the practice of
the merchant service, it was wrong to put to sea
with royal masts and topgallant yards in such un-
settled weather, and with a barometer still low,
though rising. A still more decided protest against
this practice in the Board of Trade Report might
have had a salutary effect, but it is clear that
neither it, nor any of the other circumstances enu-
merated by Mr. Highton, wss the chief cause of the
loss of the London. That loss was immediately,
though not, as there stated, " entirely owing to the
sea getting into the engine-room and extinguishing
the fires." As this was done by a cross sea, it may
fairly be questioned whether, had the ship been
hove to, it would ever have happened, and why,
after it did happen, the opening of the hatchway
was not planked over is left unexplained. It is also
difficult to understand how the spars and booms
carried away came to be encumbering the deck, in-
stead of being cut adrift or firmly lashed. Upon
the whole, we are inclined to agree with Mr. Henley,
and to_ascribe the unsatisfactory nature of this re-
port, for unsatisfactory Mr. Milner Gibson confesses
it to be, partly to the fact that " inquiry and trial"
are two distinct processes which ought not to be
combined.

POST.—The resolution of which notice was given
last night by Lord Grosvenor will, ,unless we are
greatly mistaken, prove the deathblow of the Minis-
try. The fact that it comes from the back benches
of the Ministerial side of the house gives it a weight
and an importance which would not attach to any
resolution emanating from the leaders of the Oppo-
sition, and claiming support on the ground of the
advisability of substituting them for the present
occupiers of the Treasury bench. Against a party
resolution of the Tories the Government might have
hoped to hold its ground. The defection of the fol-
lowers of Mr. Lowe and Mr. Horsman would have
been more than compensated by the uncompromis-
ing support which would have been given by the
Radicals to a bill which they now recognise as hav-
ing been framed with express regard to their re-
quirements. The Whigs, too, would certainly have
swelled the rank:, of the Ministerial forces against
their own traditional opponents, and the majority
of thirty, which ardent political statisticians have
predicted for the Government, might have been
nearly approached, if not attained. But the face
of ti.e battle is changed. The cloud of dust advan-
cing on the horizon turns out on a nearer view to be
not. Grouchy, but Blucher, and the only alternative
the Ministry has now before it is to raise the cry of
saute qui peat, or to stand to its guns and be mowed
down. The absence of all demand for Reform in
the country would have been a sufficient reason
for any Government not including Lord Russell,
Mr. Gladstone, and Milner Gibson, to abstain
from touching at all a question to which so little
importance was attached by the country at large,
and of which the only result could be to imperil
its own existence. But Mr. Bright's hustings
pledges and their own fate have impelled them on-
ward. They have reversed the proverb. Out of
the flower Safety they have plucked the nettle
Danger; and that they should sting themselves,
through their determination not to let such things
alone, was to be expected, and cannot be wondered.
at. Had they not obtained them with a predeter-
mination only to use them -in one way, the much-
quoted electoral statistics would have furnished still
further arguments againstthose that already existed
against the supposed necessity of giving the fran-

chise to increased numbers, whose imaginary NVrongs
the Ministers had set themselves to redress. It was
already admitted that the proposed recipients had
not asked for the fair share of the franchise, which
it was proposed to give, but the statistics proved
that they had already got it. Nothing daunted, the
Government at once decided to out-reform Re-
formers, and, abandoning the argument for giving
to him that had not, they proclaimed that to him
that had they would give even more than he had.
That such a bill should have been rejected by the
Tories was to have been expected, but the crushing
argument is now furnished against it that among
its foes are also even those of its own household,
those who, were it possible to accept it, would have
welcomed it gladly, not only for the sake of ex-
cluding from power their own political opponents,
but also for the sake of the permanent accession of
strength it would have given to themselves. That
they, too, should have now declared against it is the
strongest condemnation it could receive, or, if not
the strongest, only less strong than that the Radi-
cals should have declared for it on the express
ground that it is to be considered only- as a means
of further unsettling the question. Lord Gros-
venor's resolution attacks the bill on the weakest of
its many points. Every reason that could pos-
sibly be adduced to show that it is imperative to
legislate for Reform is of equal force to show that
it is equally imperative, when the question is
treated, to treat it completely. And it is an un-
doubted fact that the present bill, which treats
one half only of it, actually leaves the other half
worse than it was before. Redistribution of seats
is at least as important as extension of the fran-
chise—if, indeed, it be not more important ; and
the argument of the Government, that there is nob
time for now treating both, is a crushing argument
against now treating either. Reform, it is said, is
not so immediate and pressing a necessity as in
1832, when all other business was suspended for it,
and therefore we are told it is advisable to settle it
in part now and wait for the rest. But if it is not
pressing or immediate, how much more reasonable
it would be to postpone it altogether till such a
time as all can be settled at once. The Ministry
will not find it easy to answer such an argument,
and will not be aided in their answer by the know-
ledge that the course they have taken has been
adopted in order to the acquisition of votes, not
upon the merits of the question, but from the fear
of a dissolution, and the suspicion that it has been
chosen also with a view to render their continued
existence through another session necessary for the
completion of work they had begun. The resolu-
tion is admirably worded, and has the advantage of
expressing an abstract proposition which it is all
but impossible to meet with a negative, and for
which politicians of every shade could vote for rea-
sons as different as their opinions. The proposition
that it is inexpedient to discuss a fragment of re-
form until the house has before it the entire scheme
contemplated by the Government, might carry with
it the vote even of Lord Russell himself ; and the
difficulty of justifying the adoption of an inexpedient
course of conduct in so important a mutter is ren-
dered an impossibility by the entire absence of evi-
dence to show the necessity for its discussion at all
at the present moment. What course the Ministry
will take in view of this changed aspect of affairs
remains to be seen, and there will probably be as
much diversity of opinion on this subject as there
has been on every other ; but at any rate the lesson
will be learnt by all parties that it is impolitic
and suicidal to touch with a rash hand questions
which neither demand nor require immediate recon-
sideration.

COUNTB,Y MARKETS.