"Suppose, for instance, the ship to have cost, when new, six thousand pounds, and suppose it, during the time it lasted, to have made considerable profit, but to have much decreased in value, no person would probably have given above half value for it to purchase; but the owner, without doing any thing dishonest, or which is not done every day, may keep it insured to the full value it cost him, when new; and if it be totally lost, he gets three thousand pounds more for it than he could have got from a purchaser."

66

Ay; but

you supposed it to have made a profit; suppose it had not made a profit?"

"Then, he has the more need to get quit of it."

"Then, by that reasoning, a ship-owner may often make a profit by his vessel being lost?"

"It is done every day. It is as common a trade as selling old clothes in Rag Fair."

"Then I am sure it would have been for the advantage of the underwriters that the vessel had been preserved ?"

"That it most certainly would not.”

"How so, when the property was sacrificed in the sea?"

"It requires but little reflection to discover that, if there were no losses at sea, there would be no sea insurances; and it requires just as little to see that the underwriters must get more money than they pay away, otherwise they would become bankrupt.”

"Please to explain yourself a little farther."

"If there be a million of money paid away in Lloyd's every year, for losses at sea, there must be above a million received; for instance, say a million and a half, and the half million, or surplus above what is actually paid away for losses, just goes into the pockets of the underwriters."

"Then, by whom is this million and a half paid?"

"By the public."

"But how is it paid?”

"By a tax on merchandize, and all sea-borne commodities."

"I will again be obliged by your explaining yourself."

"The Shannon whaler was going to the Davis' Straits whale-fishery, and was lost on the passage out; this, of course, made one ship less at the fishery; and, of course, there will be one cargo less at the market; and this increases the price of whale oil and whale-bone and if, instead of the Shannon only being lost, there be twenty more ships lost at the fishery, the price of these articles will just be increased by the amount, or value, of twenty-one vessels less at market.”

"I do not believe the public view the loss of ships in this light." "No. The great art is to keep them from knowing this: otherwise Lloyd's would be deserted."

"How so?"

"I have already said, if there were no losses at sea there would be no sea insurances."

"Had the whole crew of the Shannon been drowned, and the vessel not heard tell of, what would have been done?"

"The owner, or his broker, would probably have gone into the room up stairs, and offered, perhaps, 30, 40, 50, 60 per cent or upwards, of premium, for any person to take risks upon it, and insure its return." "What is premium?"

Money paid to induce parties to take risks."

"And what would be the consequence if the vessel did not return?"

"The party just loses so much over and above the premium he received, paid back for every £100 of risk he took upon it."

"And if it did return?"

"He just pockets so much of premium, as he took of £100 risks upon it."

"Does either party know where the vessel is all this time ?"

"No. If they do, it is fraud."

"Then, is this not a hazard upon an uncertain event, of which neither party knows what will be the issue?"

"It is precisely so."

"Could vessels be built stronger and safer, and such melancholy accidents as the loss of the Shannon prevented in future?"

"With the greatest ease."

"Then why is it not done?"

"Because it would be against the interests of all the parties I have already mentioned."

"Is there any proof that vessels might be built stronger and safer ?” "Yes."

"Where is it?"

"In men of war, or ships fitted by Government, as was the case with the Isabella and Dorothea, where (but we must keep this to ourselves) ships are not insured."

"Then do you consider insurance to be the sole cause of so many merchant vessels being built unsafe, and lost?"

"I consider insurance to be the sole cause of it."

"Would it not be to the advantage of the crews, that vessels should be built stronger and safer?”

"Unquestionably. It would preserve them from being drowned, or losing their property."

"And of passengers?"

"And of passengers the same as the crews."

"And of the public, where merchandize is concerned?"

"Undoubtedly."

"And is this known to all these parties, ship-builders, ship-owners, and underwriters ?"

"To many of them, it is as well known as it is to me."

"Why this is very like a combination by all of these parties against the interests of the public?"

"And so it is."

"Is this the practice of trade?"

"The whole principle of trade, is buying cheap and selling dear; and of the carrying trade, in keeping up the value of the stock, and making a profit above the expenses."

"This, then, does not seem to conform to those principles ?"

"It has no more similarity to them, than throwing the dice at Crockford's has with fair dealing. They are both speculations on a hazard, and the only earthly difference between them is, that insurance is carried on, under the sanction of law, and is considered a legal risk for the benefit of trade; the other is unprotected by law, and is considered illegal, but in principle they are both hazards of precisely the same kind."

"Are there any other instances than men-of-war, of vessels being strongly built?"

"Yes."

"What are they?"

"Merchant vessels which are not insured."

"How does the East India Company do with their ships?"*

"To what extent do you suppose that lives are sacrificed every year, which might, if vessels were made stronger and safer, be preserved?" "To at least TWO THOUSAND LIVES EVERY YEAR."

66

Why, this is little better than Burking by wholesale?"

"It is precisely so, and the only difference between them is, that in the one case, Burking was detected, and in the other case, it is not known to the public."

"And to what extent is property sacrificed every year, which might be preserved ?"

"To at least a million sterling a-year."

"Do you mean British subjects and British property only, or the lives and property of all nations ?"

"I mean British subjects, and British property only. If we include all nations, the amounts will at least require to be doubled."

"Upon what grounds do you make the calculation?"

"Upon statements and calculations which have lately appeared in the newspapers."

"Then why do not the public insist on vessels being made stronger and safer, and this suffering and loss prevented?"

"The public are always slow to move, even where their own safety and interests are concerned, and to the vast majority of them, these things are not known; and when a vessel is lost, they attribute it to a dispensation of Divine Providence, shrug up their shoulders, bless God it was not themselves, consider it was a fair sea risk, and that it could not have been prevented."

"Have no attempts been made to inform the public, that vessels might be built stronger and safer?"

"Yes. Many."

"And what has been the result?"

"The public would not look at any publication, or receive any information on the subject. In fact, the public would as soon think of looking at a book in Hebrew or Chaldee, as they would at a book on strengthening ships."

"But will ship-builders, ship-owners, underwriters, and surveyors of shipping, not look at them?"

"No. They all know well that it would be against their interests if

A charge was here made by the clerk against a party in the India House, of so strong a nature that we cannot allow it to be reported to the public without proof of its truth. Our clerk's facts and inferences well deserve attention; but we think him rather severe in his imputation of motives. Yet men, noways remarkable for inhumanity as individuals, often do strange things collectively. We have little faith in the justice or humanity of Trustees, Directors, Commissioners, Justices of Peace, or the Members of Close Corporations, when several act together.

ships were made stronger and safer, and therefore they are to a man interestedly prejudiced against them."

"On what pretence do they object to vessels being made stronger and safer ?"

"On pretence of the additional expense of building; but which is just a pretence to gull the public, and to make it pay for all vessels that are wrecked and damaged, and to fill their own pockets."

"Then, if the public were made aware that their lives and property were sacrificed in the sea to fill the pockets of ship-builders, shipowners, underwriters, and surveyors of shipping, would they not take steps for their own safety?"

"I doubt it very much. There is such an apathy amongst the public, and such a general feeling, that what is every body's business is nobody's business; that, unless the whole nation could be aroused, it is most probable that nothing would be done, although the public were made fully aware of all these facts."

"Have not many passengers been drowned in steamers, since the introduction of steam navigation ?"

"Yes. Many."

"And could similar drownings be prevented in future?"

"Yes. With ease."

"Then, why does not the Legislature take up the subject?"

"The Legislature is tender of interfering with the property of private parties; and it considers that if one-half of the public are fleeced of their property and drowned, to fill the pockets of the other half, that this is all for the benefit of trade, (like the glazier's boy breaking the windows, and the doctor breaking the glazier's boy's head, both for the benefit of trade,) and that it is not their province to interfere between the parties. Besides, these drownings keep down the population, which Malthus says, should be kept down to the subsistence fund; and they are attended with this peculiar good consequence, that the parties never make any complaints to disturb the repose of the Legislature afterwards, as clamorous and dissatisfied emigrants sometimes do. For all these good reasons, the Legislature declines to interfere."

"But suppose a transport vessel, full of troops, to be lost, and all the troops drowned."

"Then Government just sends another, to run the same risk." "But is the loss of the troops not a great loss to Government ?" "No. What is the cost of a few hundreds or a few thousands of troops, drowned, (the lives are considered of no value whatever,) to the revenue which Government derives from the loss of vessels ?"

"How does Government derive a revenue from the loss of vessels ?" "It increases the sale of timber, hemp, flax, iron, copper, pitch, tar, and all materials of which vessels and their equipments are composed, and on which there are duties. It also increases the sale of all documents connected with shipping, on which there are stamp duties, such as charters of affreightment, bills of lading, policies of insurance, arbitration bonds, protests, seamen's articles of agreement, apprentices' indentures, &c., and even increases the consumpt of paper, on which there are heavy duties, and materially increases the revenue of the Postoffice."

"Any thing else ?"

"Yes. The duties on exports and imports."
"How does it increase the duties on exports?"

"If a vessel be lost with an export cargo, another cargo will be required to supply the country, or place it was going to."

"But, then, does not Government lose the duty on imports? Suppose, for instance, an East Indiaman coming home from China with a cargo of teas and silks, to be lost on the passage home, does not Government lose the duties on these articles ?"

"No. The sovereigns of Leadenhall Street, who supply the public with these articles, exactly as the Dutch supplied spices from Amboyana, order home another vessel, belonging to their High Mightinesses, with a cargo, which pays the duty in lieu of the one which was lost, and they charge the whole expense to the public."

"But suppose a West Indiaman, laden with sugar, rum, and coffee, to be lost, and which was not under the control of sovereign purveyors and sovereign carriers ?"

"In that case, the supply of these articles is regulated by the demand for them; and if one vessel and cargo be lost, another will be sent to supply the demand, and Government does not lose the duties."

"But suppose a Portuguese vessel, laden with wine, or an American vessel, laden with tobacco, to be lost, does not Government lose the duties ?"

"No."

"How is that?"

"Another vessel is just sent in the place of the one which was lost; and the only effect is, to heighten the prime cost of the article to the public, to pay the expense of the vessel and cargo which were lost, before the duties are laid on by Government."

"Does this hold throughout all commerce?"

"Throughout the whole property in shipping, and exports and imports of the kingdom."

"Then, it appears Government are as much gainers by the loss of vessels as ship-builders are."

"They are more so, since the property of Government is only nominal, and consists only of duties, for which no real value is given; but the property of ship-builders is real material and workmanship.”

"Does this account, then, for the repugnance which Government have to encourage the building of vessels stronger and safer, which do not belong to the Royal Navy?"

"In my opinion it does so."

"Was not there a committee of the House of Commons appointed to inquire into the loss of steam-vessels, sometime ago?"

"Yes."

"And what was the result?"

"A report of the House of Commons, recommending that steamers should be built stronger; which in all probability will be carried into effect in the year 1932, and, Finis."

"Since you are so well informed on the subject, why do you not let the public know how easy it would be to prevent many shipwrecks and drownings ?"

"Do you think I am a fool ?"

"No."

"Then, how can you expect that I, having the fear of God, and of losing my situation, before my eyes, would furnish the public with information which might have the effect of taking my bread from me?"

"How could giving the information be the means of taking your bread from you?"