The Sun.
London, England, 1857-07-04 00:00:00

LONDON, SATURDAY, JULY 4, 1857.

Nothing possibly could be better conceived, in
its way, than the appointment of this New Com-
mission of inquiry in regard to our British Har-
bours of Refuge. It was ample time for a bold
and decisive step like this to be taken by Her
MAJESTY'S Government. Hundreds of thousands
of pounds have already been spent, at this point
of our coasts, and that, in the endeavour to realise
one or other of the many pet projects of certain
Great Personages (in Shandeian phrase) " Hobbi-
horsically inclined"—sometimes a noble Duke,
and sometimes, it may be, a Royal Highness.
There was—or rather there is—Dover Harbour,
for example, the " Fancy" of the late Master of
the Cinque Ports, his Grace the Duke of WEL-
LINGTON ! A consummate General, but neces-
sarily as such, in the eyes of seafaring men, quite
as much of a land-lubber as Major STURGEON
himself ! However— knowing absolutely little
or nothing about matters requiring the experience
of a maritime career, and a profound knowledge
of engineering—the Duke had a eertain crotchet,
or twist, or weakness, or whatever you may like
to call it, about Dover being made a Harbour of
Refuge; and the thing was, as a matter of course,
set about in consequence. Observe, this was sixteen
years ago that the project was first seriously enter-
tained. The works there, being first regularly
commenced ten years back, namely in 1847, when
" an upright wall was begun to be constructed,"
as Mr. HENLEY observed last evening, " to enclose
an area of 520 acres at an estimated expense of
two and a-half millions of money." Now, mark
what the Right Hon. Gentleman added immedia-
tely afterwards :—" The first contract," he said,
" was for 800 feet, which was finished in 1854.
Another contract was made for 1,000 feet—in all
respects similar to the original plan. Up to a
certain point the work was very slow-800 feet
out of a mile and a quarter only being completed
in 1854. The contract for 1,000 feet was to
be completed in 1864, or 100 feet per annum ;
but the works had not been completed at that
rate." Nay, so far, indeed, have they been
from proceeding "at that rate," that we actually
find Mr. HENLEY observing a few minutes later,
by way of wholesome recapitulation—" 800 feet
were completed up to 1854, and another 1,000
feet were contracted to be finished in ten years,
which would bring it up to 1864 ; but 1,500
now remained to be carried out, and at the pre-
sent rate of progress it would take 85 years to do
it." Sir CHARLES NAPIER being somewhat less san-
guine than this in his anticipations—for we note
the hon. and gallant member observing, a little
further on, in the course of last night's discussion
upon the Estimates—" If it (the Dover Harbour)
went on as it bad done, it would not be finished
for 200 years." We have given these particulars
and these comments "in full," because we take
the case of Dover to be very forcible in the way
of illustration. The works there, at Dover—the
enormous expenditure required increasingly for
their prosecution—the almost hopeless and
even despairing tardiness of their advance—and
their inevitable inadequacy for their intended
purpose when completed—all tend clearly and
distinctly to mark the Outlines of the existing Sys-
tem ! The old, old system of "How Not To Do
It"—at the utmost possible expense to the Nation !
Here have we been spending, in a compara-
tively short time, three millions and a half of
money upon "Harbours of Refuge "—two or
three of which are, as such, obvious blunders—
and leaving parts of the coast wholly uncared for,
where Harbours of Refuge ought most certainly
to be constructed. Egregious mistakes in this
way, viz., as designed for "Harbours of Refuge"
—have been the works, for example, both at
Dover and at Alderney. Indeed, so undeniably
inappropriate are they for the proposed, or rather
for the supposed, end, that—after all these years
and all this expense and all this labour
—we now find Sir CHARLES WOOD fairly letting
the cat out of the bag by acknowledging that the
harbours of Dover and Alderney are not designed
strictly as Harbours of Refuge—(of course not I)
—but as Military Defensive Harbours ! Better,
then, have called things by their right names—
but no ! that might, perchance have wounded the
delicate amour propre of some " magnanimous
ally !" And so, forsooth, we must stand upon
these little fribbling punctilios, and dedicate our
energies for years to the construction of presumed,
or at any rate so-called, Harbours of Refuge, that
turn out to be not intended (even intended)
Harbours of Refuge after all ! Not by any
means, that these works are useless far
from that—but that they are useless as Harbours
of Refuge.
However this may have been in regard to
Dover, or in regard to Alderney—there are some
of these works upon which we have been for the
few last years engaged, and upon which we have
spent in round numbers some 3,500,0001. sterling
that are noble works s indeed AS Harbours of Re-
fuge. For instance, there are the splendid works
in progress at Portland, and to which we have
wisely dedicated a considerable portion of our
convict labour ! But works like those at Port-
land and at Holyhead ought not in a
great maritime country such as this to
be " exceptional. " From the Downs to
Portsmouth we have no Harbour of Re-
fuge whatever ! When it is undeniable that
midway between them, we might—at New Haven
and Seaford Bay, as recommended by the Naval
Commission--readily construct one adequate for all
the purposes, or more literally speaking, for all the
perils of that part of our channel navigation, for not
more than 500,000/. Merely a seventh portion
of the sum already expended, nominally to the
same end, but really not by any means to the
same end, upon our old bungling
system ! And,
remember, that all this while during which we
have been disbursing 3,500,000/.
up
kind of equivocal Harbours of Refuge dnown atse
Dover and at Alderney, and elsewhere—we have
not expended a single sixpence to the same purpose
along the whole coast, from the Humber to the
North Forth We think with Mr. BENTINCK
who spoke admirably, because most sensibly, last
evening during the course of these discussions
upon the Estimates—we think with him that
the works upon which we have already adventured
ought in reason to be completed, and to be com-
pleted as quickly and as effectually as possible.
But we hope at the same time that the Commis-

sion which has been now appointed, by her MA-
JEsry's Government to look into the whole ques.-
tion of the liarbutirs of Refuge may resolve

upon a course for the future more rational and
more comprehensive ! And not only more ra-
tional and more comprehensive, but more
prompt and (so far are we from wishing
for an unwise economy in this matter !) more
munificent ! Recollect how wantonly, how cruelly
and how uselesslywe spent 100,000,000/. upon the
lateßussian war ! How wisely, how humanely, and
bow prudentially would not a quarter of that sum
be applied to the construction of noble Harbours
of Refuge, placed here and there at the "likeliest"
points of all, along the whole of the sea-girt
shores of Britain. ! It were an enterprise worthy
of a great maritime Power--•an enterprise in the
furtherance of which, at any cost, we are pre-
pared to support the councils of a loyal, a
patriotic, and a sagacious Government.

The difficulties attending the transfer of real
estate, either by way of sale, or mortgage, have
long attracted attention. They have constituted
some of the greatest impediments to parties de-
sirous of obtaining possession of small parcels of
land, and becoming proprietors of, or interested
in, the soil, and thus possessing what is termed
" a stake in the country." The large proprietors
keep up the practice, to prevent competition.
But, by so doing; they greatly deteriorate the
value of their own properties. We have no
hesitation in saying that, under a more judicious
system, such investments would be equally sought
after. Every man likes "to sit under his own
vine and fig-tree," or to use a more homely
phrase, "to kill his own mutton." It is exceed-
ingly pleasant to have no rent to pay, to maintain
an independent bearing, and vote freely for the
man *hose opinions are most in accordance with
those of the possessor of the suffrage. But these
advantages are expensive luiuries ! They are neu-
tralised by the heavy costs that must be paid for
their attainment, as well as by the doubts that
must be entertained as to the soundness of the
title.

Months are consumed in waiting for the delivery
of the abstract, the consideration of objections,
and of the answers thereto. During all this time
the money is lying idle, and the purchaser has
learned that he has paid by far too dear for his
whistle, simply in consequence of the legal ob.
stacles that arise to a simple and unquestionable
transfer.

Nor is it merely the present inconvenience that
deters intending purchasers. Most men wish to
divide their assets among various relatives, The
law of primogeniture does not exclude all sound
and wholesome feelings amongst the great body of
the people, nor will the man who has earned his
own money make one child or one relative wealthy
at the expense of all others equally near and
dear to him. After his death the ex-
pense of deducing title will fall on his
Trustees and Executors, and of course greatly
diminish the fund to be divided. This must na-
turally constitute a great drawback to the value
of his acquisition, and the marketable value of
land is proportionately diminished. It is not too
much to say that it would be increased by at
least two or three years purchase, and conse-
quently the real deficiency occasioned by the legal
restrictions on the safe and easy transfer of land
may be estimated at the enormous sum of from
One Hundred and Eighty to Two Hundred and
Seventy Millions sterling, rather too high a price
to pay for the gratification of the hobby of the
lark de cracy.

There is no valid reason why, under a judicious
system of registration, real estate should. not be
transferred as- easily, and but for the outlay on
stamps, as cheaply as money in the funds, Bank
Stock, or Railway Shares. It is the complicated
system of trusts, and the injudicious principle
that the purchaser is bound thereby, and must
also look to the application of the purchast-
money, that occasions all the mischief. With a
judicious system of registration, the owner or
owners of the legal estate could always convey a
clear title ; and, if any danger were appre-
prehended, a distrin gas could be obtained
at a trifling expense, which would pre-
vent the sale without notice to any who might
claim an interest, whether in possession, rever-
sion, remainder, or expectancy. The greatest
advantages to the community at large would then
be obtained, and although frauds might occasion-
ally be practised, they would scarcely be more
numerous than under the existing system, while
the balance of convenience would be so largely in
favour of the community, that no unprejudiced
and disinterested person could hesitate on the
question. The time has gone by when distinc-
tions between real and personal estates can be
maintained or justified, or when the transfer of
a few acres of land should be surrounded with
safeguards not required respecting stock or shares
of a hundred or a thousand times the value ; and
the sooner the anomaly can be got rid of, the
better.

We rejoice to find that Lord BROUGHAM has
taken up the subject, and that even Lord ORAN-
WORTH has expressed himself favourably to the
substitution of more simple forms for those at pre-
sent in operation, and also that there should be a
registration of mortgages. His Lordship, how-
ever, fears that " the varied nature of our settle-
ments, and the various uses to which land is
applied in this country, render it chimerical to
hope that the transfer can ever be made as easy
as the transfer of bank stock ;" but he thinks that
"great improvement may be effected." We cannot
participate in his Lordship's doubt. We believe
that as many, as various, and almost as important
provisions are made with respect to stock as to
land. It is true that there are not the absurd
limitations over for the purpose of preserving con-
tingent
remainders, &c., but all may be simplified;
and if once the sharp end of the wedge be intro-
dnced, we have but little doubt that eventually
all that can be desired in the way of simplifies.-
tion and facility and security of transfer may,
and will, be accomplished.

The Election Committees are doing their work
bravely. Two honourable Members at least feel
quite at ease in their seats for this Parliament,
and that is something. It seems the seats were
generously purchased for them by certain parties
who had no connection whatever with the honour-
able Members. Money was, indeed, freely spent,
but so honourable were the Member 7, that other
persons, not their agents, at least not proved to
be so, thought themselves honoured by throwing
away a few odd five-pound notes to see their
favourite man M.P. for their borough. Roch-
dale and Wareham are noble proofs of electoral
generosity ; we wonder they did not save their
honoured Ronourables the expense of the bust-
ing:, and all other legal expenses ; it would have
made the pecuniary testimonial so much more
impressive and effective. All England would
then have heard of the model boroughs,
cos;
which would not allow their rich repre-
sentatives to
ectionps—so greatly pay
on
not theirs, but them. But for the Election Com-
mittees we should never have heard of the ge penny
did of
they the
of their el
prize,
self-
sacrificing canvassers of Rochdale and War
ham.

The former borough has already

lie attention. One of the generous friends of the
sitting member had not discontinued his genero-
sity with the election. It led him to violate the
privileges of the House of Commons, and furnished
a pleasant 1 ttla interlude to the dull. debates of
one evening. His generosity did go as far as
501.—it could not reach 100/.2 that was rather
too much fcr a generous beer-shop keeper—it did,
however, go as far as 501., to get one witness--
ADRAHAM ROTHWELL—to deport himself to New
Orleans pending the Election Committee's inquiry.
The same ROTHWELL stated that he had been
generously offered money by the same beer-shop
keeper, PETER JOHNSON, if he would write to the
Rochdale papers, contradicting the report that he
had been bribed—for so the kind offer of Si. by one
MILLS, a parson who had made similar kind offers
to others, vas unhandsomely termed. Numerous
liberal pro?osals, termed by the closefisted peti-
tioners, Bribery, were also proved to have been
made by ether parties. Indeed, so indiscrimi-
nate was the generosity, that witnesses were not
wanting, who took the money and then voted for
the other Candidate i It is due, however, to Sir
A. RAMSAY'S supporters to say, that they did
endeavour to prevent such imposition on their
goodness ; their wish was to cut the five pound
notes into halves, and to keep one half till after the
polling. Rochdale birds were not, however, to
be caught with half-notes.
After what passed in the House of Commons,
it was supposed that the Committee would
have short and easy work of it ; especially as it
consisted of four Tories and one Liberal, a Tory
belt?, Chairman ; the honourable impartiality of
Tories, and their zeal for "privileges" being well
known. It was supposed that a witness who
must ba got rid, of, at the cost of 501., was, in the
view of Sir A. RAMSAY'S friends, pretty certain
to prove the case against them. He did
prove that MILLS had got him Si. for
voting, and several instances of similar
and equally unquestionable benevolence were
proved—but one thing was not proved—the
agency. MILLS had canvassed, had got money for
voters, had been in open connection with the com-
mittee ; but he was not proved, to the satisfaction,
of the Honourable Members who composed the
committee, to be an agent. Hence they could re-
port that several cases of bribery were proved, but
not that the bribery was committed by the agents
of the Honourable Member, or with his cogni-
zance. The Wareham report was a variation of
the same air. In this case, also, as the sitting
Member was the Conservative candidate, and the
Chairman and majority of the committee were
Conservatives too, we have the same guarantee
as in the Rochdale case for the perfect fairness of
the decision. It must have been highly gratify-
ing to the committee, and no doubt will be so to
the country, that, however injudicious the gene-
rosity of some of the supporters of their represen-
tatives, the representatives themselves do not ex-
change gold for votes.

We may, however, be excused for looking at
both cases in the vulgar view of them. According
to that, the proof of agency was almost as good
as that of bribery indeed, we should think that
hundreds have enjoyed the blessings of the tread-
mill, perhaps some even stepped higher, to the
very scaffold itself, on no better evidence. If in
the Rochdale case, or the Wareham case, proof of
agency could not be found for acknowledged
bribery, where will it be found ? The last Cor-
rupt Practices Act resolves itself into an imprac-
ticable one. The bribery may be proved over and
over again, but the licember will take good care
that he has no connexion with it which can be
legally proved. The only use of the Act is to
make Members and agents more cunning and
wary. The practical clause in the Bill, that which
required the Member to swear that he had no
knowledge, direct or indirect, of bribery in the
election, was struck out. What do our
readers really think would be the position
of Messrs. RAmsAY and OALCRAFT, had
they to take such an oath in order
to retain their seats. The House of Lords has
just received a bill with a new oath from the
House of Commons. Some of their lordships will
want to insert the words " on the true faith of a
Christian ;" we beg to suggest a clause which
would conduce, we think, much more to the
Christianity of the House, or at least to the Chris-
effect—" And I do solemnly'
tianity of the elections by which it is chosen--it
which has been paid or
this effect—."
swear
eualrd
thatbe ton
o shall be paid by me or my supporters has, to the
best of my knowledge and belief, been, employed
or promised, directly er indirectly, with a view
to influence the electors in my favour."

On the whole, the proof was plain enough,
that if the last Act could not prevent bribery,
no alternative but a stringent member's
oath, or the ballot, remains. The auditor's report
is a perfect farce. The oath would deter all de-
cent men from the practice or permission of
bribery. The ballot would almost annihilate it.
At Rochdale the bribers were unwilling to pay
till the vote was secure. When they did, the
money was taken and the vote given to the other
party ! What would bribers do if no receipt
could be given ? Oases of intimidation were also
proved ; it is acknowledged that nothing but
the ballot could meet them. As we are soon,
however, to have a case of intimidation by whole-
sale, we defer re
marks on that subject for the
present.