ANY person who has travelled on our seacoasts, and has been in the habit of conversing with the fishermen and other seamen at the various ports, fishing-towns, and wateringplaces, on the subject of their rendering assistance to shipwrecked crews, will have probably been struck with the very general complaint of their being insufficiently remunerated on such occasions. And perhaps the conclusion at which he may arrive on the contemplation of this circumstance may be, that, after all, the whole tribe are a mercenary race, and that it has been a great mistake to suppose them actuated by the noble feelings from which we would willingly believe every act of heroism to arise, especially •when its primary object is to save the life of or otherwise materially benefit a fellow-creature.

Whilst, however, it may be wrong to suppose that our sea-coast mariners are invariably actuated by the highest motives on such occasions, or to conclude that they act very differently from what other classes of men would do in analogous circumstances, yet it would be equally erroneous to arrive at any such wholesale disparagement of them as to imagine that personal gain is the chief stimulant which urges them to risk life and limb on such hazardous enterprises.

Mankind, indeed, taken collectively, and on the average, have through all times been formed much in the same mould. Noble aspirations and heroic dispositions, as well as the numerous faults and infirmities of our fallen nature, have existed innate in the human breast, in all countries, under all forms of religious belief, and amongst all classes of society; although the former have shone forth more brightly and more generally, or the latter, have obtained a more prevailing influence, according as the different outward circumstances in which men have been placed have been more favourable to the growth of the one or the other.

Looking, then, at the class of men who form the subject of these remarks, as being spun with the same " mingled yarn—good and ill together" as ourselves, we have evidently no right to expect that they should be all philanthropists, ready to sacrifice their time—their property—their health—and their lives, with all life's interests and ties, at the call of humanity, and without other inducements, such as wealth or fame, which as secondary causes act so powerfully on the mass of mankind, to lead them on to the performance of great actions.

May there not, therefore, be much justice in the general complaint amongst them of their services being inadequately requited, and often insufficiently appreciated, although they may sometimes be actuated by motives of cupidity? We will accordingly suppose it granted, that men who at the risk—and often imminent risk—of their own lives, go off to the wreck, to save those of others, are in equity entitled to receive pecuniary remuneration for the same. The question next arises—by whom are they to be paid ? And 1st, does the law of this country make provision for them, or, in other words, have they a legal claim on any parties whatsoever ? 2ndly. If the law makes no such provision, are they sufficiently remunerated from any other sources ? Oil the first head, our own conviction is, that the law intends to make such provision, although there is sufficient ambiguity in those clauses of the Wreck and Salvage Act which apply to the case to have led to diversity of opinion respecting their correct interpretation.

The clauses to which we allude are the 13th, 19th, and 21st sections, cap. 99, of the 9th and 10th Victoria

The 19th sec. states—" That every person (except receivers under the Act) who shall act, or be employed in any way whatsoever, in the saving or preserving of any ship or vessel in distress, or of any part of the cargo thereof, or of the life of any person on board the same, or of any wreck of the sea, &c., shall, within 14 days after the services so performed, be paid a reasonable reward or compensation by way of salvage for such service, by the commander, master, or other superior officer, mariners, or owner of the said ship or vessel, or their agent; or by the merchant whose ship, vessel, or cargo, shall be so saved as aforesaid, &c." The 21st sec. provides—" That if any person shall have rendered any service (except ordinary pilotage) in the saving or preserving of any ship or vessel in distress, or of the cargo thereof, or of the life of any person on board the same, or of any wreck of the said goods or other article hereinbefore mentioned, &c., and the said person, and the master or owner of such ship or vessel, or his agent, or the owner of such article, or his agent, cannot agree upon the amount of salvage or compensation to be paid in respect of such service,—the matter or difference may be determined by any two justices of the peace, residing at or near to the place where such service has been rendered, &c." The 13th sec. enacts—" That as often as it shall happen, upon the sale of articles— that after the payment of duties and other necessary expenses, there shall not be left a sum sufficient to defray the salvage,"—application may be made " to the Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury," through the proper authorities, who " may, and they are hereby authorized to allow such sum to be paid out of Her Majesty's Exchequer, by way of salvage, as they shall deem sufficient." Now, in the two first-named sections, the saving of life is as distinctly included as are the different descriptions of property named in them; and justices of the peace have in a few instances awarded salvage for saving life on the authority of those two sections.

But others have thought themselves not justified in doing so, considering that if the Act has not exclusive reference to property, there is at all events, in the case of saving life, a difficulty in defining on whom should devolve the payment, especially in the case of passengers whose lives may have been saved. And on this point there is some ambiguity, on account of the number of parties named in the clause, any one of whom may be amenable to it—viz. " The commander, master, or other superior officer, mariners, or owner." It appears, indeed, difficult to conceive any case in which the " mariners " could justly be called on to pay salvage, unless it were for the saving of their own lives.

So far as the crew of a vessel are concerned, we incline to the opinion, that the intention of the Legislature has been, to consider them, for the time being, as the servants or property of the owner of the vessel, and for whose lives, as well as for their proper treatment, he should be answerable.

As regards passengers, such as emigrants or troops, who may be on board in large numbers, the same reasoning will not hold good, inasmuch as they are in no sense the servants or property of the owner, but it is surely well that in cases where the lives of large numbers of human beings are at stake, the owner of the, at best, ftaii barque which is freighted with them should be held responsible for their safety, where the slightest neglect on his own part to secure it could be shown to have existed. In such instances, where no culpability could be proved to attach to the owner, the loth section could at once be brought to bear, and the salvage money for human life be paid out of Her Majesty's Treasury.

It has been argued, that the spirit of the Act is, to pay out of the proceeds of the property recovered, and that when there is nothing left, as in the case of a vessel's total destruction, there can be nothing wherewith to pay. Also that in such a case the owner may be an unknown foreigner, whose other property could not be made available.

To the first of these arguments we reply, that where culpability attached to the owner, his other property ought to be appropriated.

And, that where no neglect existed on his part, as also in the case of the foreigner, the 13th section of the Act would come into play.

It has again been asked—What would be the use of institutions such as this one, if provision were legally made to reward the salvors of life as well as property ? To this we answer—That -at present we cannot pretend to adequately reward all such services, but only to offer an acknowledgment of them. Whereas, if our interpretation of the law on this subject were acted on, there would still doubtless be many exceptional cases which would call for our pecuniary aid, whilst we should continue to step in with our medals and other honorary rewards.

Ample scope for the usefulness of the National Shipwreck Institution would also remain in providing and maintaining lifeboats and life-apparatus around the coasts of the United Kingdom.

On our 1st head, then, we repeat, that we consider the law as it now stands may be made available, although it is desirable that it should be made to speak more plainly on the point.

On our 2nd head, as we have already stated, this Institution cannot adequately reward services where risk of life has been incurred, and we know not from what other source they can be so. We trust, however, that something more will be done in the matter, and that the country generally, and the members of her Legislature in particular, may be led to take more interest in and devote more attention to a subject, the importance of which, in a great maritime and commercial country like this, cannot be overestimated, and in which we think is involved very considerably the credit and humanity of the nation.