' For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle ?" IN the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, which, conjointly with the Passengers' Act of 1852, now constitutes the whole law as re- gards all matters connected with the merchant shipping of this country, are certain clauses intended to afford protection to the lives of persons embarked in merchant vessels, by re- quiring them, under certain circumstances, to carry life-boats and life-buoys. In a review of that Act at the time (in Noa. 14, 15, and 17 of this Journal), whilst giving much credit to Mr. CARDWELL, its originator, we pointed out some of what appeared to us to be its shortcomings and inconsistencies. Amongst others, that, unless ten passengers were carried, neither life-boat nor life-buoy was required to be on board any ship. We pointed out the absurdity and cruelty of such a limitation, which afforded no protection to any less number of passengers than ten, and which appeared to hold the lives of ships' crews themselves to be of no value, or, at least, as entitled to no protection. We also hazarded the opinion that every British sub- ject embarked onward a British vessel was entitled to that protection from the law which might be denied him by the ship- owner.

There exists another serious defect in that Act, which we deem of so important a character as to nullify all the advantage of those portions of the Act which we have above referred, to as affording, in theory, a limited amount of protection to passengers above the number of ten in any one ship.

The defect we allude to is this—Thai there is no clause in the Act which defines the character or size of the life-boats to be carried, thereby leaving that most important point to be settled by the owner of the ship, who, in the majority of cases, being quite ignorant on the subject, can hardly be expected to attach more importance to the question than the Legislature appear to do, and who, in too many cases, therefore, will be, in a groat measure, guided by the amount of cost, and will provide that which is cheapest rather thaw that which is best.

The above is no theory of our own, although it is no more than we anticipated when the Act of 1854 was first promul- gated, but it is a fact which we have many opportunities for observing. We will men- tion a case in illustration. We. were a. short time since in a boat-builder's yard at the time that a shipowner, whose vessel had been chartered by the Emigration Commis- sioners, was ordering a life-boat. The ques- tion arose between him and the builders as to what should be the diameter of the zinc tubing which would form the extra buoyancy of the boat, and thereby make her a life-boat. The builder advocated a dia- meter of 10 inches; the latter thought 6 inches would be quite sufficient, whilst tubes of that diameter would of course be cheaper. The argument used by the builder was that he thought the Emigration Officer of the Port of London would expect them to be of the larger size; that of the owner was that he thought that officer would allow the smaller to pass. The question of efficiency was not discussed, yet the larger size named was too small to be really efficient. We afterwards asked the builder why he had not told this gentleman how much more efficient would be the larger than the smaller tubing, to which he replied, that he had learned by experience it would have been only a waste of words to do so; that the question was always one of pounds, shillings, and pence.

In a former number of this Journal we recorded the more extreme case of its having been proposed to a boat-builder to hide the decayed parts of a worn-out boat behind the life-boat fittings. Such instances are suf- ficient to show that in a matter of such paramount importance, where the lives of many human beings are at stake, no dis- cretionary power should be left in the hands of those whose pecuniary interest lies on the side of inefficiency. Yet the law as it now is, except in the case of emigrant-ships, which fall under the Passengers' Act, simply requires that a life-boat shall be carried, leaving the size and description of life-boat to the discretion of the shipowner; whilst in the case of the emigrant-ship, although some discretionary power is placed in the hands of the Emigration Officer, there is no officially recognized standard according to which the same should be constructed.

In all matters of importance in our public services where efficiency is required a fixed standard is adopted, and in some matters of much less importance than that on which we are now treating. The horses, arms, and accoutrements of our troops, and the guns, spars, and sails of our ships are provided after a given standard; and if even a new hat, or coat, or sword, is introduced in either our army or navy, a pattern one is exhibited at the official tailor's or outfitter's. And is not an instrument for the preservation of life of as much importance as those employed in its legitimate and even necessary destruction? And is not a life-boat, which, according as it is efficient or the reverse, shall prove to perishing human beings an Ark of Mercy or a Vessel of Destruction—is it not a thing of more importance than hats and coats ? Presuming that the reply to this question will be in the affirmative, and that the necessity for a Standard Life-boat will be admitted; the important question will then immediately arise—What description of life- boat shall be adopted as a standard? Our reply to this question is, that we know of no ship's life-boat at present in existence in this country which possesses the requisite quali- fications, with the exception of that of LAMB and WHITE (of Cowes), and of the collap- sible life-boat of the Rev. E. L. BERTHON, either of which would probably be too ex- pensive for general use in ordinary merchant I craft,'and which, for such use, have other I disadvantages. We know of no other ship's life-boat which we think deserving of consideration; and we consider the qua- lities of the majority of them to be a mere sham. A long canvas bag stuffed with cork shavings (the canvas sometimes rotten and the cork water sodden); or a small metal cylinder is secured round either side of a common ship's boat under the thwarts, and these are often effectually con- cealed behind a wooden casing, so that no one shall be able to judge of the efficiency or non-efficiency of the mystery within; and the thing is then dubbed a life-boat. Where then shall a standard life-boat be found? We think the difficulty may be speedily solved. Let there be but the demand, and the supply will soon follow. We will sug- gest a mode of proceeding which we think might be successful.

Some five oars since, a public-spirited nobleman offered a prize of 100 guineas for the best model or design of a shore life-boat; in reply to which offer, within a few months, no less than 280 models and designs were exhibited for competition. Now we do not mean to suggest that .any private individual should offer such another prize for --ship's life-boat, although we think that such a work has a stronger, or at least a more special, claim on some of our leviathan shipowners, than had the work of affording .aid to ship- wrecked seamen from the land, on the dis- tinguished nobleman above alluded to. But our proposition is, that Her Majesty's Board of Trade, into whose protective care (by the Act of 1854) the hapless victims of ship- wreck have been especially consigned, out of the large sums at their disposal, gathered from shipping, and forming the Mercantile Marine Fund, should set apart, say 1000Z.

for this important work—a work which, if we look to the prospective benefit to hu- manity through future time, of such an im- portant engine for saving life, would be cheaply accomplished at a cost of 50,000/.

We would suggest that this l,000f.

should be devoted to the giving four prizes, of the respective amounts of 500Z., 250Z., 1501., and 100?., for the first, second, third, and fourth best ship's life-boats, not models or designs, which are often deceptive, but for full-sized boats; the whole of which should be submitted to similar practical tests of efficiency at one and the same time and place, under the direction of competent judges appointed to determine on their rela- tive merits. Whether successful in practi- cal result or not, this would at all events be a more serious effort to produce an efficient ship's life-boat than has ever )'et been attempted.

Trusting that we have not been alto- gether unsuccessful in proving the necessity that exists for adopting a standard descrip- tion of ship's lifeboat, and the practicability of obtaining an improved description of such boats, we will, in conclusion, rapidly glance at what would still remain to be done before we should possess a system which would show to the world that, as a nation, we esteem above all sordid considerations, the duty of man to his neighbour—that we set that high price on the life of man, made in God's image, which a people professing to march in the van of civilization and Christian progress is called upon to do, if that lofty assumption be anything more than vain profession.

To effect such a work, we must be satis- fied with no half-measures; we must grasp in one idea the extent of the work to be done,s and determine, with God's help, to do it.

It will not then suffice to have one life- boat, constructed after an improved stand- ard, on board every vessel carrying more than ten passengers; but the principle must be at once adopted that there shall be life- boat accommodation on board every vessel sailing under the British flag for every human being embarked under its protection.

Even in the crowded emigrant or troop ship, with the aid of the Rev. E. J. BER- THON'S splendid invention of an efficient collapsible life-boat, the carrying out of so truly national a scheme is readily practi- cable. Having advanced thus far, and provided every vessel with her registered number of officially approved-of life-boats, we conceive that but two other things would require to be done to complete the system for the protection of life on ship- board, so far as we comprehend it. The first of these would be to adopt, compul- sorily, CLIFFORD'S or one of the other im- proved methods of lowering boats at sea.

The second would be to adopt the same principle, as regards life-boats, as is prac- tised, for the protection of the public, in the case of all public vehicles on the land, viz., to authorize every boat to carry a fixed number of persons, and to require, under penalty, that number to be legibly and con- spicuously painted on each boat. As the aggregate number thus recorded of all the boats of any vessel would be equivalent to the greatest number of passengers she was licensed to carry, every person within her would have always present to him the fact that there was life-boat accommodation for all on board, which assurance would of itself prevent much of the panic and confusion that arises on occasions of disaster at sea; whilst the officer or seaman in charge of each boat, as he would know the exact number she was allotted to cany, would take care neither to suffer more persons to rash into her than that number, or to shove off from the vessel with less, both of which causes, but especially the former, have occa- sioned the loss of so many human lives which might otherwise have been saved.