THE important and interesting question as to whether or not our Coast Lights should be exhibited free of charge to the shipping of all .nations has been recently discussed in the House of Commons. It is an important question, seeing that the amount paid an- nually by British and Foreign vessels enter- ing the ports of the United Kingdom reaches the sum of 325,000?., and it is also an interesting one—both hi a national and international sense.

Under the old system of international commerce,—when, instead of consulting chiefly the interests of their own populations by enabling them to purchase the necessaries and luxuries of life in the cheapest market, it was thought by the rulers of the civilized nations of the world, that the aggrandize- ment and welfare of their own countries were best advanced by taxing all foreign products—the idea of making the night illumination and the buoying and beaconing of our coasts self-supporting, by levying a toll on all vessels, whether of our own or foreign nations, using our ports and harbours, was a consistent one. The question, how- ever, now arises whether such a system, under the altered circumstances of the times, may not be inconsistent and short- sighted.

In a Conservative nation like our own, which is not Conservative from timidity, but rather from solidity of character, from cau- tion, and from a natural veneration for a " great past," it is not surprising that national customs, habits, and institutions should often continue for a longer or shorter time after they have become unsuitable or inconvenient.

And the greater the importance and the larger the sphere of operation of any such, institution or custom, the longer is it likely to maintain itself against the growing con- viction of its unsuitability; the same law of inertia operating to produce that effect that in the case of natural objects causes a large or heavy body to continue to move for a longer time after having been set in motion than a smaller one, or to be with greater difficulty suddenly arrested in its course.

Not that it follows, however objection- able or unsuitable an institution or custom may have become, that it may not have been admirably adapted for its proper func- tion or use during the proper term of its existence. A notable case in point, which at once suggests itself for illustration, is that of the late East India Company—the grandest corporate body that ever existed—which con- quered and maintained an empire for more than a century, and whose officers, both civil and military, by their genius and prowess shed a lustre on their country and on the age in which they lived. Yet its armies and ter- ritories have, with advantage, been trans- ferred to the British Crown, to be one of its brightest jewels.

In like manner the suitability of the pre- sent system under which our " Lights, Buoys, and Beacons" are now managed is questioned, on the ground: 1st. That the duty is a national one, and that the cost of its performance ought to be borne by the whole nation, and not by one class alone, the owners of ships and their cargoes. 2nd. That as most other maritime nations light and buoy their coasts from their national funds, and ask no contributions from foreign na- tions to aid in their support, it is therefore unbecoming in this country to act less liberally towards them. 3rd. That the present system of placing the duty of light- ing and buoying the coasts of the United Kingdom on three private corporations, viz., the Trinity House in England, the Com- missioners of Northern Lights in Scotland, and the Ballast Board in Ireland, is as costly as it is inconvenient.

The whole question was brought before the House of Commons, on the 4th May last, by Mr. HEADLAM, the Member for Newcastle, when it was discussed by eminent men on both sides of the House; and although that gentleman was induced, at the request of members of the Government, to withdraw his motion, the further consideration of the question is undoubtedly only postponed.

In considering it, we will take the divisions of the subject in the order above enumerated.

1st. That our coast lights, &c., should be maintained at the cost of the nation, and not of a section of it only.

Those who advocate the change contend that, as a great maritime and commercial nation, and, moreover, being an island, or rather two islands, and therefore with no other ingress and egress to and from our shores than our great highway the sea, our commerce with the outer world is so mani- festly for the benefit of every consumer in these islands, and therefore of every person living in them, that all works necessary to facilitate the approach to them is of so na- tional a character, that the expense of pro- viding the same should be borne by the whole community, and not by the shipping interests alone; the latter course being, they maintain, precisely as if a tradesman were to charge his customers for providing access to his own door.

They further state, that incidental evils arise from the present system, as, for in- stance, that vessels frequently sail in bal- last in preference to taking in a profitable cargo, or partial cargo, in order to avoid the light dues. And thus foreign vessels are driven from our shores, remaining at Havre, or some other of the Channel ports, in- stead of crossing to England for a return cargo, being deterred solely by the heavy dues which they would have to pay.

Another complaint of the present system is, that trading vessels alone are taxed, and that pleasure yachts and men-of-war have the benefits of the lights, buoys, and beacons, without contributing towards their mainte- nance. And again, they demur that, whereas there have been vast savings from sur- plus funds arising from the dues on mer- chant shipping, yet those savings, instead of being invested and the interest employed in lighting our coasts, have been expended on matters altogether unconnected with ship- ping.

The arguments on the other side, on this branch of the question, cannot be more clearly expressed than in the words of Mr.

LOWE, the present Chancellor of the Ex- chequer, in reply to Mr. HEADLAM :— " This payment is called a tax. It is not really a tax. It is a payment received for service con- ferred. The money spent on lighthouses, &c., is spent for the benefit of the shipping interest—to save the property and the lives of seamen. That being so, the next question is, who pays them ? Of course, in the first instance, they are paid by the shipowner. This being an indirect tax ulti- mately paid by the consumer, the money must be advanced by some one, and the person advancing it is the shipowner. There is nothing harsh or unfair in that. These dues are not collected from persons whose ships are in ballast only. They do not apply unless freight is carried, and, therefore, the shipowner has them repaid to him in the freight.

" People talk of taking money out of the ' Con- solidated Fund,' as if it found its way there of itself. But if you take 325,000f. out of the Revenue you must get it from some other quarter, and it would be exceedingly difficult to get that sum collected in a way that would operate more justly.

" There is also this practical advantage in this tax. Shipowners apply for lights, and the Govern- ment are willing to put them up if the shipowners are willing to pay the dues, and thus the Govern- ment have every security that the lights are needed; whereas, if the money to provide them came out of the General Revenue, it would be nobody's interest to check unnecessary expen- diture, and the Government, by misrepresenta- tion, might often be induced to put up lights in wrong places.

" Then, as for its collection, nothing could be cheaper or more convenient, for it is collected at the end of the voyage, when there is a general settlement of accounts, and it therefore appears to me to realize all the elements of a sound tax." But, secondly, it is maintained that, inasmuch as most maritime nations provide lighthouses, &c., at the national cost, it is unworthy of the greatest and wealthiest maritime power in the world to act more illiberally and inhospitably to other countries than they do to it; and that we ought rather, as we have already done in the matter of free trade, to have taken the lead of other countries in such a course, instead of lagging behind them.

Some of the arguments advanced under the last head apply also to this one, and, as already stated, foreign vessels are not unfrequently deterred altogether from en- tering our ports, in consequence of the dues levied on them; but, in addition, the ad- vocates of the proposed change naturally take up the higher ground of looking to the honour and fair fame of our country in the eyes of the world, and demand that we should at least equal them in gene- rosity.

Mr. HEADLAM, in the recent debate in the House of Commons, reminded the members that a Committee of their House, appointed as far back as 1845, on the mo- tion of Mr. HUME, had recommended the same course as that now advocated; and that another Committee in 1860 affirmed the re- solutions of the previous one, expressing the opinion that the lighting of the shores of this country was an Imperial duty, and re- commending that the nation should take on itself the cost of the lights, &c., and assume their management. He also stated that Mr. JOHNSON, the late American Minis- ter in England, when invited, on a public occasion, to use his influence to promote free trade in the United States, replied by re- marking on the manner in which this country treated the Americans with respect to light dues.

Another Member, in illustration, quoted the case of a firm trading between Balti- more and Bremen, who in 1868 paid no less than eighteen per cent, on their gross freight carried, as light dues, in consequence of calling at Southampton, and stated that he knew of two, if not of three companies, who now, in order to avoid the light dues, called at Havre instead of at Southampton.

In reply, on the other side, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. LOWE, acknowledged that by relieving foreign shipping from light dues a greater inducement would be held out to it to enter our ports; it, however, seemed to him that the same argument would apply for giving foreign vessels free ad- mittance to our docks, and he knew of no limit to such an argument, whilst such a course would be, in reality, a system of benefits to foreign commerce; adding, that he was unchivalric enough to think it a considerable advantage that nearly one-half of the expense of lighting our shores, &c., should be borne by foreigners instead of by ourselves. The President of the Board of Trade, Mr. BRIGHT, expressed the same opinion, and stated that on similar principles he should feel a difficulty in defending any tax.

Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, after going over other ground and stating that tonnage dues were levied in France to an amount equal to, if not exceeding, our light dues, but were reduced in 1867, and would be still further reduced in 1871, admitted that the in- ducement thus offered to foreign vessels to go to a French port, instead of an English one, would at the latter period be deserving of serious consideration.

He further added that— " Whatever might be the opinion of the House as to the policy of raising the means to maintain the lighthouses y light dues, and however de- sirable they might think it to throw the cost of the lighthouses on the country, he hoped they would not assent to the terms of the motion.

When other nations did not treat us generously ; when almost every other nation put protective duties on the import of our manufactures ; when the United States charged 45 per cent, upon them, and thereby levied millions; while American shipowners did not pay more than 10,0002. of our light dues, he thought the House would not ex- 1 press the opinion that the practice of levying j light dues was unworthy of us as a maritime i nation. When other nations dealt with our ma- nufactures as we dealt with theirs, then it would be time to put on record such a motion as this; but other countries could not throw stones against I us, and therefore it was not right that we should i commit ourselves to the declaration proposed." Thirdly, the present system of manage- ment by three private corporations is im- pugned.

Mr. HEADLAM, in introducing this part of the subject, remarked that— " The history of the lighthouses was eminently characteristic of the country. It showed no fore- thought on the part of the Executive. The Go- vernment did nothing to contribute to it. They commenced by granting the privilege of erecting lights along the coasts to the LORD HIGH ADMIRAL.

On its surrender by Lord Howard Effingham, means were taken to vest it in one of the great City companies—the Trinity House. They had the power of putting up lights along the coast, and no doubt they did some valuable service, and they spent their money like gentlemen; but they charged the shipping infinitely more than the cost; the surplus they employed partly in badly- administered charity, and partly in very mag- nificent hospitality. They were subject to no control; no account was taken of their funds, and they acted in the spirit of the times in which they lived. The Government never controlled or in- vestigated the expenditure: but from time to time they made special charters to friends of their own for the erection of private lighthouses along the coast, with powers of indefinite taxation over the ships that passed them. Then came the question how these powers were to be got rid of, and Go- vernment, which had made such improvident grants, considered them as vested rights which ought to be bought up; and the unfortunate ship- ping interest had to pay not only for the bond fide work done, but for all the charities of the Trinity House, for all the improvident leases, and for all the hospitality of the Board. Such was the state of things down to 1834, when the subject was taken up by the late Mr. HUME, who well deserved a tribute of admiration for the sincerity, earnest- ness, and perseverance of his exertions in relation to the lighthouses of this country and the charges on the shipping interest. Mr. HUME grappled most successfully with the subject. He obtained the appointment of a Committee in 1834, which did eminently good service. Then first com- menced the improvement of- the system. They made a report well worthy of perusal. The lights in the different parts of the United Kingdom were conducted on an entirely different principle. There was a division between the public general lights and the local and harbour lights. He admitted the distinction made by that Committee, and it was with the public lights alone that he proposed to deal. The Committee recommended that im- provident leases should be bought up and paid for out of the taxes imposed on shipping, and that power should be given to tthe Trinity House to buy up the private lights. During the interval between 1336 and 1845 the Trinity House had bought up many of the private lights, and brought things into a better state. The recommendations of that Committee were embodied in the Act of 1846, which gave ample powers to the Trinity House. Mr. HUME, not satisfied with the great boon which had been conferred on the trading portion of the community by the exertions he had made, returned to the subject in 1845, and got a most important Committee appointed to investi- gate the subject." To that Committee we have already referred.

Another member, Lord BURY, whose opinion may be considered fairly to repre- sent those of the advocates of a change in this department, stated that— " He did not think the gentlemen who now ad- ministered the funds of our lights, buoys, and beacons were proper persons for discharging such duty. Although, in his opinion, the Trinity Board ought »ot to continue to be maintained simply on account of its antiquity, he felt bound to admit that, barring its wasteful expenditure of public money, that body had done its work very well, if not in a systematic manner. Formerly, he was told, the funds were administered with consider- able malversation, but at the present day none of the old abuses existed, and he only imputed to the Trinity Board incapacity to carry out what it had no machinery to carry out. He should like to see it converted into a great office of State, nnder the control either of the Board of Trade or of the First Commissioner of the Navy. At present it was certainly not a proper tribunal for deciding matters of this kind. There ought to be a large preponderance of the scientific element in the body which administered our lighthouses, but the Elder Brethren of the Trinity House consisted almost exclusively of merchant captains. He now came to Scotland, -wheie the matter was under the Commissioners of Northern Lights, gentlemen who were by no means the persons to whom the administration of our lighthouses should be in- trusted. They consisted of provosts, bailies, and the sheriffs of all the maritime counties of Scot- land, who were not the persons to whom the people of that country would voluntarily intrust the management of their lights. So, again, in Ireland, the Ballast Board consisted almost exclusively of members of the Corporation of the city of Dublin.

He next came to the authorities who administered the local lights on our coast. These were the Har- bour Conservancy Boards on various parts of the coast, and each of those bodies did exactly what seemed right in its own eyes, not acting on any regular or uniform system, but making between them the whole thing one mass of confusion. In some instances, unless they happened to have a book with the sailing regulations of a particular harbour, it was impossible to tell when it would be safe to enter it. With all that uncertainty and confusion the clearness and simplicity of the French plan contrasted most favourably. When anybody approached a French harbour he saw before him a mast with a yard on it, and on the mast were one, two, or three balls, the position of which told him in a minute what the depth of water on the bar was, and whether it was safe to enter the harbour. That system was understood throughout the whole of France. The noble lord also contrasted the French system of buoys and beacons with our own, showing the former to be far superior to the latter. He pointed out that the signals of the Trinity House indicating safety and danger were exactly the opposite of those of the Commissioners of Northern Lights. The system adopted by the Board of Admiralty also varied in every one of its ports. His third point was that that most imperfect system, as at present administered, was most wasteful. The expendi- ture of the Trinity House, the Commissioners of Northern Lights, and the Irish Ballast Board was in round figures 278,OOW., to which had to be added the expense of maintaining steamers, 26,OOOZ., or in all about 304,000/. Then there were salaries of the home establishment, law charges, salaries and wages of the district establishment, and also salaries and expenses connected with the three central offices. These amounted to 64,807Z., or nearly one-fourth of the whole expenditure on lights. He thought everybody would agree that that expenditure would be enormously reduced if, instead of three distinct Boards—the Trinity Board here, the Ballast Board in Ireland, and the Commissioners of Northern Lights in Scotland— we had one compact Board, consisting of naval officers and scientific men, and sitting in London.

What he wished particularly to impress on the House was this, that there ought to be one great central authority, that that central authority ought to be the First Lord of the Admiralty, or else the President of the Board of Trade, with a reconstituted Trinity Board under him, to which all those points relating to the buoyage and the lightage of our shores ought to be referred; and that the whole system ought to be conducted upon one great plan, worthy of our position as one of the first maritime nations of the world." On the other side, Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE observed— " That, with reference to the management and expenditure of the Trinity House, his right hon.

friend in his very able statement had entirely passed over the legislation of 1854. But in that year the Trinity House, as far as expenditure was concerned, was placed under the Board of Trade, and from that day to this not one single sixpence could be, or had been, spent by the Trinity House without the authority of the Board of Trade. There- fore, for any wasteful or injudicious expenditure, it was not the Trinity House, but the Board of Trade, that was to blame. The position of the Trinity House, however, in other respects remained the same. For example, it could appoint and dismiss its own officers; but as the conscience of such Boards was said to reside very much in their purse, and the Board of Trade had complete con- trol of that, it had also full control over the con- duct and actions of the Trinity House. In fact, the Trinity House had become a sort of depart- ment of the Board of Trade, though in some re- spects, perhaps, the connexion was not so close as might be desired. In the Report of 1861, which had been alluded to, he believed that more com- plaint was made of the economy of the Board of Trade in respect of lighthouses than of anything else. Since 1861, however, large sums had been expended in building new lighthouses and im- proving those which already existed. The hon.

member for Liverpool was a member of the Royal Commission, and he believed that hon. gentlemen would allow that the Trinity House had brought up the lighting of this country to an equality with that of almost any other country in the world.

Great credit was due to the present management of the Trinity House, and more especially to the Deputy Master; but his opinion coincided with that of his noble friend as to the present organiza- tion and relation of the Trinity House and the other Boards of Management. As he had stated, there were four bodies that had to do with lighthouses.

The Scotch and the Irish Boards were indepen- dent bodies, but they were subject in some re- spects to the Trinity House, because they had no nautical men upon them ; and if there were any difference between them and the Trinity House the Board of Trade acted as arbitrator; and as the Board of Trade had complete control over the purse of the Trinity House, it decided any financial question. It had always seemed to him that there was great perplexity in the present arrangements, and that it would be better if there could be an amalgamation of these bodies, and one Board ap- pointed which should have authority over the lighthouses of the country. This had been the opinion of successive Governments, and attempts had been made at different times to remedy the evil; but it had been found difficult to do so, mainly on account of the jealousy displayed by the Scotch and Irish Boards when it was proposed to amalgamate them with the Trinity House. The constitution of the Trinity House Board must be admitted to be unsatisfactory. It was too nume- rous, consisting of twenty members, who received 3001. a year each; and it could not be doubted that it would be far better that there should be few members, that the lesser number should de- vote themselves wholly to the business of the Board, and that they should be better paid. The Board of Trade was now in correspondence with the Deputy Master of the Trinity House, and it was hoped that arrangements would be made which would to some extent remedy the existing evil.

He had himself already pointed out that the ac- counts of the Trinity House were not sufficiently explicit, nor rendered in an intelligible form ; but he hoped the next accounts would be presented by the Board of Trade. At present dues were paid into the Mercantile Marine Fund, out of which the expenses of the lighthouses were paid; but it seemed to him that it would be much better that the dues should be paid directly into the Exche- quer, and that the estimates submitted yearly by the Trinity House and the Scotch and Irish Boards should be submitted to the House and votes taken upon them. In that way the expenditure on the light- houses would be subject to the direct control of the House instead of that of the Board of Trade." Mr. GLADSTONE, the Prime Minister, followed on the same side, endorsing the opinions expressed by the other members of the Government.

After thus quoting the statements of the very eminent men who have publicly dis- cussed the question in their places in Parlia- ment, and having already almost exceeded the limits of our space, we must curtail our own observations on it.

When such men as Mr. GLADSTONE, Mr. LOWE, and Mr. BRIGHT are opposed to the change which is now, not for the first time, advocated, it must be admitted that there is something to be said on both sides of the question, but we feel that in reality the Ministerial opposition arises from the diffi- culty and perhaps impossibility of providing, at the present moment, for so large an amount from any other less objectionable form of taxation.

We are, however, persuaded, as we have already mentioned, that the question is only postponed, for we consider the greater weight of the reasoning is on the other side.

It is not denied that the tax is ultimately paid by the consumers, for the same may be said of all taxes, yet very many taxes have been swept away, for similar reasons to those which make this one objectionable. It is inconvenient, it hampers commerce, it is unequal in its pressure, it is inconsistent with our amended commercial system, it is behind the age as compared with the custom of other maritime countries, and the manage- ment of the work is costly and more or less inefficient, from the division of authority and the anomalous constitution of the several Boards which control it in the three divisions of the United Kingdom.

We believe, therefore, that it is only a question of time as to when it will be abro- gated, and that the whole provision and management of our " Lights, Buoys, and Beacons " will be provided at the national expense, and placed under the direct man- agement and control of a renovated Trinity Board, with a responsible head under a suit- able department of the Government. And we trust that the time is not far distant when this important change will be brought about.