IN our last number we commented on the j first portion of this important Report, comprising the clauses on "Overloading and Load Line," "Deck Loads," "Grain j Cargoes," and "Survey of British Merchant Ships."  Of the remaining clauses some will only call for a very cursory glance, as, although affecting more or less the wel- fare of the Mercantile Marine, they have only an indirect connection with the question of loss of life at sea, with which we are more immediately concerned.

Remedial Legislation.—Taking the se- veral clauses consecutively, the nest that calls for observation is that headed " Re- medial Legislation;" which thus com- mences — "Parliament has during many years been engaged in attempting to regulate minute details connected with Shipping. Shipowners reasonably complain that they have been harassed in their business by well-intended but ill-contrived legislation, and Sat this legislation is enforced by a Department imperfectly acquainted with the science of Ship- building and with the interests of our Mercantile Marine. The officers of the Board of Trade admit that many enactments, designed to secure safety of life at sea, have been mischievous, and should be modified or repealed. The amount of legislation, and the multiplicity of details connected with Shipping, which are now regulated by law, have not been altogether successful, and it seems that the results aimed at are hardly attainable by Acts «f Parliament" Several instances are then quoted of failure of past legislation when brought to the test of practical application. It is stated that the law requiring boats to be carried in proportion to tonnage had been found to be impracticable; that by the Act of 1873 the BOARD OF TRADE had taken discretionary power in the matter, but that their surveyors sometimes dif- fered in their views, the number of boats sanctioned at one port being afterwards disallowed at another, occasioning thereby expense to the owner and obstruction to trade.

So as regards ships' lights: it is ad- mitted that they are most important for the avoidance of collisions, but shipowners are said to complain that the lights ap- proved by one surveyor are disapproved by another, and that the BOARD OF TRADE have not as yet prescribed any satisfac- tory standard of efficiency, yet tell them that they must obey the statute.

Again, that watertight bulkheads are undoubtedly a security against a ship's foundering at sea, but that the law pre- scribing two bulkheads as a minimum served but to increase the risk and give a false notion of security. The Commis- sioners, on this head, also see great prac- tical difficulty in the way of legislation.

The position of sea-cocks, double bot- toms for water ballast, insufficient security of the ventilating hatchways of engine- rooms and stoke-holes, the mode of test- ing chain-cables, the adjustment of com- mode of conducting these inquiries; that the tribunal does not command general confidence; that the mode of procedure was said to be dilatory and expensive, the power of the court ill defined; that in some cases it could not be enforced; and that the present mode of conducting these inquiries assumed the shape of a criminal proceeding- against the captain, rather than a careful investigation into the cause of the disaster. Again, that the court has no power over the shipowner, who, however culpable, was altogether beyond its jurisdiction.

The Commissioners consider it a matter of public interest that these inquiries should be conducted in such a manner as might best disclose the circumstances to which every disaster at sea should ba ascribed. They, therefore, attach great importance to the institution of such searching and impartial inquiry as might show whether the casualty had arisen from faulty construction of the vessel, bad stowage, or from circumstances connected with her navigation—the incompetence of the officers, or the neglect or misconduct of the crew.

In commenting on the preliminary in- quiries made by the "Receivers of Wrecks," they state that, founded on the evidence they had obtained, they recommend that : the preliminary inquiry by the Receiver of Wrecks should be limited to such a : narrative statement as would enable the { BOABD OF TRADE, with the aid of their legal adviser, to decide on the propriety of an official inquiry. And, should such i an inquiry be deemed advisable with the j view of ascertaining the cause of the dis- aster, and thereby guarding against future casualties, that there should be a com- plete severance between the inquiry and any proceedings of a penal character; that it should be a mere inquest into the cause of the loss or casualty, the result being reported to the BOARD OF TRADE, and the Board having power to prosecute the shipowner, or to proceed criminally against the master, mate, or any member of the crew, whose neglect of duty might have occasioned the disaster.

passes in iron ships, regulations as to safety-valves, are all referred to under this head, and the general conclusion come to is that they are not matters for legislation; and the Commissioners state that the evidence respecting them evinces the in- expediency of incessant interference in details connected with shipping; that the BOARD OF TRADE have now large dis- cretionary powers; that the judicious exercise of those powers will suffice to check negligent shipowners without ha- rassing the whole mercantile community, and that much 'legislation OH Matters of detail might be advantageously dispensed with. Finally, after observing that the present system of compulsory pilotage is j not conducive to the security of life or ! property at sea, and that it will be ad- vantageous to get rid of it, they pronounce ! the opinion, " that all systems which tend to remove responsibility from shipowners and their paid servants are against the true principles of public policy, and that , they consider compulsory pilotage to be one of those systems." i Without disputing the general correct-ness of the principles above enunciated by the Commissioners, we question whether, i looking to the fearful calamities that occur from time to time, such as those to the ', La Plata and Cospatrick, the British public will be satisfied that such ques- ', tions as those on adequate supply of boats and rafts, and a sufficient number of watertight bulkheads in iron ships, shall be left to the discretion and respon- sibility of shipowners, at least in the case of passenger ships. Property may be left to the care of those interested in, it; but experience has amply shown that a sense of duty and feelings of humanity, where their pecuniary interests are concerned, have not sufficient influence over many persons to induce them to provide for the safety of human lives intrusted to their care.

Inquiries 5y the Board of Trade.— The Commissioners, at the outstart, under this heading, state that serious ob- jections are entertained to the present The Commissioners then proceed:— "We think that the 11th section of the Mer- chant Shipping Act, 1871, should be amended, and be made expressly to extend to the Master of the vessel; for it is very important to avoid any doubt that the Master who, without justifiable excuse, leaves port with his vessel in an unsea- vrorthy condition, renders himself amenable to the criminal law. On comparing the accidents occurring at sea with those taking place on land, and especially on railways, we are struck by the fact that, whereas in the latter cases it is usual to prosecute those servants whose negligence has occasioned loss of life, there is scarcely a tingle instance of a prosecution of a Master or Mate, or a man on the look-out or at the helm of a vessel, although the cases have undoubtedly been, numerous in which vessels have been lost either by the negligence of the master or crew. We think that enactments relating to the punishment of the master or crew whose negligence has occasioned loss of life or property should be framed of a more definite and stringent character than those no-w in existence. We are of opinion that the present system, under which the certificate of a Master or other officer is suspended, very frequently only for an error of judgment, should be entirely discon- tinued, and that neither the Court of Inquiry nor the Board of Trade should have the power of deal- ing with the certificate. We think that the cer- tificate of the officer should never be suspended, but that, in cases to be provided for by express enactment, the tribunal before which the officer i is tried should have the power of cancelling j either all his certificates, or, at its discretion, his ! higher certificates, leaving him is these cases the j power of finding employment in a lower grade.— i We attach great importance to these Inquiries, as ; affording the best means of ascertaining on whom the culpability rests for losses at sea, sod we be- lieve that such Inquiries, followed by the pro- ceedings which we have suggested, would be more conducive to the safety of life at sea, than many of the complex and minute regulations which Par- liament has heretofore enacted." We entirely agree with the view the Commissioners have taken of this subject, and think that the importance of such inquiries cannot be overrated.

Under-manning.—An undoubted cause of the loss of many ships is their being under-manned, or indifferently manned. A ship, in fine weather and smooth sea, may be safely navigated by a very few men; but in cases of emergency—of sudden storms and changes of wind, splitting | sails or carrying away masts, working off a lee shore, entering a port with baffling winds, &e,—the case is very dif- ferent; and want of skill or of celerity of movement may at any moment prove fatal. The Report states, on this head, that "The growth of trade, as the consequent addi- tional opportunities for employment on shore, as well as at sea, have increased the difficulty of ob- taining Able Seamen. The wages of Seamen have risen largely within the last few years, bat yet Ship- owners complain that they are often compelled to take such men as present themselves, of whom many prove to be incompetent to discharge pro- perly the duties of Seamen. The ignorance and incapacity of these men throw additional work on the good Seamen, cause dissatisfaction in the ship, and enhance the dangers of navigation." So great, indeed, is said to be the de- ficiency of British able seamen, that cap- tains of our merchant ships could not man their vessels without Swedes, Nor- wegians, and Lascars. The British sea- man, as a rale, is said not to be deficient in elementary education, it being a rare exception when he cannot write; but he is often deficient in thrift, in sobriety, in discipline, and in that self-control which, it is one of the important objects of education to promote. Parliament has endeavoured, by various enactments, to ameliorate his condition and improve his character, yet much remains to be wished for in that direction. That large bodies of men in early and ripe manhood, sepa- rated, to a great extent, from the human- ising influences of domestic life and inter- course with the other sex in respectable life, are ever likely to be as tractable and generally well-conducted as those of their own class on the land, except when sub- jected, as in the public services, to naval or military discipline, is perhaps too much to expect; nevertheless, we believe that when a higher moral tone and better education are general amongst the classes from which they mostly spring, and when the majority of our merchant seamen are chiefly supplied by the training ships— •which, are increasing in number, and should be in every mercantile port—we believe that a vast improvement will take place in the morale, physique, and capa- bility of the British merchant sailor.

Shipping Offices and Discipline.—These offices, in the large ports, are managed by the local Marine Board, a body partly elected by the shipowners, and partly se- lected by the BOARD OF TRADE. Some shipowners now state that the system does not work well, and that it would be better if they were allowed to engage sea- men, as other employers engage their workmen, without the presence of the shipping master.

We are glad to observe, however, that the Commissioners have now consented to look at the matter from the shipowners' point of view alone. They justly remark that the arrangement was made for the protection of the seaman, in order that he might be better acquainted with the ar- ticles signed by him, with his pay, the duration of his voyage, and other details.

They observe that the practices by which sailors were obtained before the establishment of shipping offices were corrupt and degrading, and that if the captain of a ship will take trouble in seeking out eligible men, he can arrange to meet them at the shipping office, or even engage them on. board under a spe- cial application. They, therefore, decline to recommend the abolition of shipping offices, but desire that it should be re- membered they were not intended to re- lieve captains from the trouble of seeking men fitted for sea service.

They state that the anxiety of Parlia- ment to protect the seaman and treat; him as incompetent to take care of him- j self, and to require the special interference of the legislature, has exercised a bad effect on his character; has tended to de- stroy confidence between the captain and crew, and to promote insubordination where good discipline is essential to safety.

Nevertheless, the fact remains, that he was treated as incompetent to take care of himself because he really was so. When | the better circumstances arise, to which ' we have above referred, we will hope i that the tutelage to which he is now, we j think beneficially, subjected may be ad- vantageously withdrawn, as it will be no longer needed.  After relating some of the causes which are said to have impaired discipline by weakening the authority of the master of a ship over his crew, the Report states:— "There appears, practically, to be very little power of punishing the Sailor tot anything bat mutinous conduct, in consequflace of which he can be guilty, with impunity, of many gross de- relictions of duty, some of which tend directly to the loss of property and of life. We are in- formed that it is impracticable to punish a Sailor for such a gross breach of trust as neglecting to keep a look-out, except by gouie extreme process, such as charging him with manslaughter after loss of life. Such offences as drunkenness on duty, neglect to place a look-out or to relieve it, sleeping on the look-out, neglect of machinery, disobedience and insubordination, appear to as to requite more direct penalties, and a less cumbrous, remedy, than that of being treated as mutiny, or of being- only punished when they have produced fatal results." The question as to the preservation of discipline in a merchant ship, and more especially in one of small or average size, is, we think, a very difficult one. In the ship of war the case is very different; her captain is not only supported by his exe- cutive officers, by the ship's police, and by that staunch and splendid corps, the Royal Marines, who, in the few cases where ships' companies have shown a mutinous spirit, have invariably stood by the cap- tain and officers; but he is -virtually backed by the whole armed fleet to which he is attached, and, indeed, by the whole naval and military forces of the king- dom ; and even in the larger class of mer- chant ships the captain is supported by several officers, and in them, as a rule, the majority of the ship's company would be well inclined. But in the smaller mer- chant vessel in the foreign trade the master stands virtually alone. The mate and the men are companions, and they will per- haps in general hang together. Every- thing will then depend on the tact and fitness for command of the master himself.

If he be a skilful seaman, taking an in- terest in his crew as well as in his ship, and combining kindness of heart with some firmness of character, the probability is he will have little or no trouble with his men, and that, even if there should be one or more " black sheep" amongst them, the better men will stand by him and keep the others in check.

The writer once took a passage in a merchant brig, and during the whole time that he was on board the crew were sulky and almost mutinous, whilst the master seldom spoke to any of them with- out an oath, and generally in a more or less offensive manner. It was but too evident that the fault was not all on the side of the men.

Compulsory Apprenticeship. — On this vexed question the Report states:— " With a view to remedy the existing deficiency of Able Seamen, several witnesses recommend the adoption of compulsory apprenticeship. A system of compulsory apprenticeship was established in the rear 1844, but was abolished in 1849, on the repeal of the Navigation Laws. Some Ship- owners subsequently desired to restore the system, but the measure was successfully opposed by others interested in steamships. The increased employment of steamers has diminished the oppor- tunities for training Sailors, and although steam vessels engaged in the Coasting Trade and in short voyages attract many of the best men, they train op few for the service. Different schemes have been suggested to supply this acknowledged evil, Firstly, compulsory apprenticeship ; secondly, training ships; thirdly, & combination of both schemes. This last plan may be understood from the following outline:—It is proposed that every vessel above 100 tons register, whether propelled by sail or steam, should be required to carry Ap- prentices in proportion to her tonnage (the number to be fixed hereafter), or to pay a small contribu- tion annually (such as 6d. per ton register), this sum to be applied towards the maintenance of training ships in all the principal ports of the United Itingdom. The Apprentices should, it is said, be indentured at or about the age of 14 to the Master of the training ship for five years, and after serving in this ship for one or two years, the indenture should be transferred to any Shipowner who would be willing to take the Apprentice, and with whom the Apprentice might be willing to serve until the completion of his term. In order that these training ships might fit the boys for service at sea, a small vessel should, it is suggested, be attached to each ship, go that, with other instruc- tion, the habit of a sea life might be acquired.

These school ships should be inspected and receive grants from the State according to their efficiency.

In the Report of the Commission on Manning the Navy in the year 1859, training ships were proposed to be maintained at the public expense. The cost of every boy so trained was estimated at 25Z.

a year. This sum would be increased by the additional cost of sailing tenders, and without this preparation for a sea life Shipowners would not so readily take the boys. The system, of apprenticeship undoubtedly affords the best means of training boys j for a service in which fitness only can be acquired i during early life, and if Shipowners were willing to contribute, aa suggested above, it would, in our : opinion, be a wise policy for the Government to 1 aid these industrial schools of the Mercantile j Marine." The Commissioners farther state:— "The system of training boys for the Royal Navy has been successful, and if a somewhat similar plan could be adopted for the Mercantile Marine, the Sailors and Shipowners would be benefited, while many sources of danger to the Merchant Service would be diminished or re- moved." We have frequently in this Journal j advocated compulsory apprenticeship, and | to this proposed scheme of such appren- ticeship, combined with training ships, we heartily echo the sentiments of the Com- mission ; for we firmly believe that within the life of a generation it would raise our Mercantile Marine to the high and noble j position which it ought to occupy, not only in vast numerical superiority to any of the other Merchant Navies of the world, but, by the character of its mem- bers, as one of the greatest civilising influences over the most distant regions of the globe.

Desertion in Foreign Ports.—This is an undoubted evil, which, as the Report states, deserves the serious consideration of the Government.

Advance Notes.—We feel so strongly that any system of payment to the seaman of wages before they are earned must be ruinous to him, being a direct incentive to dishonesty and to recklessness -when, on shore in the intervals between the periods of his employment afloat, that we give in extenso the remarks and re- commendation of the Commission on the , subject.

| " The evidence before us leads to the conclusion i that the system of Advance Notes is one 'great obstacle to the amelioration of the condition, of j Merchant Seamen. All the witnesses whom we have examined admit that the system is most p*t- i nicious, but it is defended on the ground that with- i out this advance the Sailor could not pay for his lodging on shore, or procure the clothes requisite j for him when he joins a ship. In practice it seems : that the Advance Note is handed over to the lodging-house keeper, not usually in exchange for cash, but in discharge of debts which the Sailor has been induced to incur. The lodging-house keeper charges a heavy fiisco mt, and the Sailor is frequently brought on board half clad and in- toxicated. Shipowners and Captains of Merchant ships concur in stating that a large portion of the ship's Crew is very often brought or even, lifted on board in a condition of helpless drunkenness, that the vessel must often be detained for 24 hours in order that the men may be so far recovered as to be able to get her under weigh, and that there is great risk of life and property at the commence- ment of the voyage from the consequent in- I efficiency of the Seamen. The Advance Note is } not payable until some days after the sailing of the ship; but if the ship then puts back or touches at another port, the Seaman often takes the opportunity of making some complaint, in order to get free from his engagement, and will even incur a month's imprisonment "with this object, whilst the Shipowner, or the person who has cashed the note, loses the money which has been paid in advance.

It is said that if there were no Advance Note, the crimp in a foreign or colonial port would not have the same inducement to entice tie Sailor to desert.

After careful consideration of the numerous evils attending this mode of prepayment, we recommend that Advance Notes should be declared illegal, that no payment or order for payment made in advance for wages shall be a discharge for the payment of any portion of a Seaman's wages when due, and that no money paid by a Shipowner to or for a Seaman shall be debited to the Seaman, except wages already earned, the Allotment Notes, and the cost of such supplies as the* Seaman may receive after joining the ship. There will be some incon- venience felt at first from the abolition of the existing system, and there will be perhaps con- siderable opposition to the change in the ports, and amongst the lodging-house keepers, who profit by the Advance Notes. We feel, however, convinced that unless this mischievous mode of payment be discontinued, the Seamen will never be raised from their servile dependence on crimps, and taugbt to rely on their own industry and intelligence. The crimping system at Quebec was brought to our notice by witnesses well acquainted with the dis- graceful practices in that port. The disorderly proceedings consequent upon it require stringent measures for their repression, and deserve the attention of the Colonial as well as of the Home Government; but we have not entered further into matters which belong directly to colonial adminis- tration." We rejoice to think that the report recommends the complete abolition of this unmitigated evil, by making all advance notes illegal.

Marine Insurance.—This difficult and complicated question is one of too great importance and involving too vast in- terests to be treated hastily; we have in former numbers remarked on it, and will probably, in a future one, do so more in detail; for the present, therefor , we reserve its discussion. In the meantime we would strongly recommend a careful perusal of that portion of the Report which refers to it. The Commissioners clearly point out the evils and anomalies in connection with the present system of insurance, and also the difficulties in the way of remedying them. They then say:— " It appears to us that our whole system of In- surance Law requires complete revision ; for not only does it allow the Insured in some cases to recover more than the loss actually sustained by him, but it also, on the other hand, deprives him of an indemnity in cases in -which he ought to be protected by his insurance," The Report states that in some eases of " valued policies," shipowners have been allowed to recover 50, even 100, per cent, more than the value of their vessels.

It may be impossible to prevent such over - insurance being in one form or another effected, but there cannot be two opinions as to its direct tendency to pro- mote insecurity of life at sea.

Conclusion.—The Commissioners in. con- cluding their Report briefly recapitulate the general principles on which their re- commendations are founded. As they consider that the BOARD OF TRADE possess, under the recent Act, ample discretionary power to detain British vessels believed to be overladen, or in any other respect ' unseaworthy, they deem it unnecessary and inexpedient to subject all British shipowners to the delay and annoyance of official surveys and inspections; and they that that the improved system of inquiry which they had indicated would afford the best means of guarding against future disasters.

In accordance with those views they ' had, throughout their Report, been anxious not to transfer responsibility from the shipowner to the executive Government; and they consider that such a policy and such measures as they had , indicated, judiciously administered by ' the BOARD OF TRADE, would contribute to the greater safety of life at sea.

We cannot conclude our revision of this valuable Report without offering our testimony to the able, painstaking, and judicious manner in which the Commissioners have executed the task intrusted to them.