the two last winters in the ice, must have been struck with the fact that, comparatively, few of the deaths, and little of their sufferings, arose from the inclemency of the climate, (beyond the circumstance of their detention) and the fury of the elements, but that the greater part of the deaths and sufferings, arose from want of provisions. In short that, the want of provisions was a greater cause of death and of suffering, than all other causes put together. That there exists a moral obligation on shipowners to have a sufficient quantity of provisions in their vessels, for the probable consumption of the voyage, there is no doubt. But, so long as there is no legal obligation, and whilst a shipowner's interest is in direct opposition to this moral obligation, I fear morality will go to the wall, and interest will preponderate. Allow me to give a short explanation of this. Suppose that I am owner of two vessels, each of the same size, and carrying a crew of say fifteen, or any other same number of men. Now let these two vessels perform a similar voyage, side by side, and return on the same day, each having carried a similar cargo, and earned the same amount of freight. One of them shall have expended a fair and reasonable quantity of provisions, in proportion to the length of the voyage and number of the crew, and the other shall not have expended above half this quantity.

In the event of this paper falling into the hands of any person not acquainted with the system on which our merchant shipping is conducted, it should be explained that, in our merchant ships there is no fixed allowance of provisions, as there is in the Royal Navy, and as there was in the East India Company's ships. But that the quantity of provisions issued, depends very much on the quantity on board, which, since it is the interest of the shipowner that it should be so, and there being no allowance fixed, and no payments for short allowance ever made, is, in general too limited; in short, there is no law on the subject. Now after my two vessels have returned from their voyage, I ask common sense, which of the two masters are the most likely to gain my favour? Is it not clearly he who has made the voyage, and expended the least quantity of provisions and thereby made the most profit to me? Although he may have done this by the free use of the rope's end and handspike, and with his crew in a state of half mutiny for want of a fair and just allowance of provisions during the whole voyage; what have I to do with that? He has still earned the same amount of freight as my other vessel of the same size, and effected a saving to me, of half the amount of provisions, to serve for another voyage. The principle therefore is clear that the shipmaster who can sail his ship at the least expense of provisions, is generally speaking most likely to gain a shipowner's favour.

I perfectly remember when I was chief mate of one of the largest West-Indiamen belonging to the port of London in 1811, after we

had struck soundings on the homeward passage, that the captain asked me whether I knew if the crew and apprentices were going to complain of him, for his harsh treatment of them, to the owner, because said he, "I hope they will, as it will be clear to the owner that the less provisions I have expended on the voyage, the more I have attended to his interest, and the more I will get into his favour," and this was strict truth. I may here state, en passant, that this ship was in a state of half, and sometimes of whole mutiny, for want of a fair and reasonable issue of provisions to the crew, during the whole voyage from and to Blackwall Dock, and that although I was chief mate of her, and no glutton, a word which was continually in the captain's mouth, as if he could, by the free use of it, satisfy the cravings of hunger, and frighten the crew from asking for a reasonable allowance of provisions, that I frequently could not get enough to eat in moderation.

I quite agree with your able correspondent "The master of a

British merchant Ship," who I observe attributes the greater part of quarrels which take place in merchant vessels, and the very defective discipline in them, to the want of a proper fixed allowance and issue of provisions, and I observe that your correspondent "Nearchus" is of the same opinion. But it may be said, if a crew be starved, they cannot perform their work, or will become so disaffected at their treatment that they will not perform it, and the vessel may be lost in consequence, and hence this will be against a shipowner's interest, and he will never employ or countenance a captain who would do so. A word of explanation goes to this. If I understand your correspondent "Mr. Ballingall's" exposition of marine insurance, aright, he says that a shipowner generally has his freight insured, and his vessel, almost always to the full value; so that although the vessel should be lost by the inability or refusal of the crew to do their duty, the shipowner would not lose anything, as he would be paid the freight and value of the vessel by the underwriter, who, as he says, charges these expenses to the public in the price of the articles carried. If the vessel arrives safe, a clear gain is effected to the owner, in proportion to the quantity of provisions saved. Following out Mr. Ballingall's hypothesis, it appears to me to be thus: If I am owner of a horse value 104, which is uninsured, and I starve it to death, I have clearly lost 107. But if it be insured, and I can get 107. for it, although I should starve it to death, I shall probably become indifferent whether I starve it to death or not. But if the horse has broken its leg, and be incapable of doing its work, but I can still insure it for 107., without any questions being asked, it clearly becomes my interest to starve it to death, and I will probably do so accordingly, and get £10 for it, with which I can buy another horse capable of doing the work and earning money for me. I will be the more inclined to do this, if I can insure

the hire for labour to be performed by the horse with the broken leg, and consequently will receive the hire also from the insurer, whether the labour has been performed or not. You will observe I have made the starving of the horse to death a voluntary act of my own, and completely dependent on my own will. Horses are subject to be drowned, or burnt to death, or break their legs, but still I am not aware that it is customary to insure against these accidents, any more than it is customary to insure mail, stage, or other coaches, against the accidents to which they are subject.

In further illustration of this principle, one shipowner sends a vessel to sea of a certain size, with say fifteen men; another sends one to sea of the same size and on a similar voyage with only fourteen men, and thus saves one man's provisions and wages; a third sends a similar vessel, on a similar voyage with only thirteen men, and thus saves two men's provisions and wages, and a fourth sends one with only twelve men, and thus saves three men's provisions and wages, and so on they go, reducing the number of men till at last a vessel is fairly lost for want of men to navigate her. But does the owner suffer no loss by this? No. The freight was insured, and also the vessel to her value, and although she has been lost, and it may be ten or a dozen human beings drowned in her, the owner has by means of insurance, suffered no pecuniary loss whatever, but receives the freight in full, and payment for the vessel in full, with which sums he may purchase another vessel, in every way superior to the one lost, and there will be no want of seamen to navigate her, and probably to meet a similar catastrophe!

The preceding, I understand to be Mr. Ballingall's theory of marine insurance, and whether it be correct or not, it does not become me to say, and I fear I have wandered too far from the subject of provisioning merchant ships. As there is no law on the subject, and it is quite proverbial with Jack, that, "he who eats most and drinks most, gets most by the voyage," it is in general the master's look out for interest's sake, that each and all of the crew shall get as little to eat on the voyage as possible. There is no disproving the fact that, the shipmaster who can conduct his vessel with the least expenditure of provisions, in proportion, to the number of the crew, will, humanly speaking, always get most into favour with a shipowner. This is exactly holding out a premium to the greatest rogue, in preference to the well disposed man of a shipmaster, and the system holds out the greatest premium by means of the greatest profit, to the penurious, illiberal and unjust shipowner, over one of an opposite character, who will not consent to make money by starving the crews of his vessels. But it is high time a stop was put to this iniquitous system, which rewards the rogue, and punishes the honest man with loss of property. A scale of provisions ought to be fixed by law for our merchant ships,

as well as for our ships of war, and made obligatory on the vessels before being cleared at the Custom House, either at home or abroad, to have a sufficient quantity of them on board for issue, in proportion to a reasonable length of passage for the voyage about to be undertaken. What should at once remove all scruple by any honest shipowner against such an enactment, is the fact that, if the provisions were not expended in one voyage, they would answer for another, and such an enactment would put the honest and well disposed shipowner, on the same footing as those who might be otherwise disposed, by making them alike subject to one law. And it would be the means of preserving the lives of many of our seamen, in similar cases to those, where there can be no doubt they have been lost for want of provisions to sustain life. It would not only take away one of the principal causes of quarrels, disputes, and defective discipline in our merchant ships, since there is no reasoning with a hungry belly, but it would further remove a continual source of disagreement between shipowner and shipmaster, and be doing only justice to the honest man. Such an enactment is in truth as much wanted in our coasting, as in our foreign trade, and cannot be made too soon.

It seems, however, to be in vain to expect shipowners to move in the matter, and since we know what was the principal cause of the mutiny in the Royal Navy, and which grievances, "Nearchus" says, would not have been remedied at this day, without the mutiny, let us hope that we will learn wisdom by experience, and prevent such a crisis happening in our mercantile Navy, as he has so broadly hinted at, and which by your law reports, and the Thames police reports, seems almost to be attained, and which if not prevented in time, will assuredly soon happen. And who can blame seamen? Are they not, in point of provisions treated worse than a shipowner's horse or cow, the property of which is invested in himself, without being insured, and which he knows full well, if he starves to death, he will lose the value of? I think some bill was brought into parliament on this subject lately, but like Buckingham's mercantile marine bill, I presume it was burked by those who considered it to be against their interests. In all large bodies of men, such as the British Army and Navy, in the East India Company's military and naval service, in charity schools, colleges, and hospitals, for the maintenance and education of youth, in hospitals for the support of the aged, in prisons, almshouses, poorhouses, &c., &c., there is a fixed allowance of provisions, and it is imperatively necessary for the well conducting of our merchant ships, that there should be a proper fixed allowance of provisions to the seamen who navigate them. This ought to be made as obligatory on the owner, by law, as payment of wages. It is in fact at present an implied obligation, but the quantity not being defined, it is not exigible by law, nor is payment for short allowance. When left to a moral instead of

a legal obligation, it is sure to be, and is, in fact, abused. That there is no difficulty, except the want of inclination in the proper quarter, to carry such a measure into effect, is proved from the fact that when government paid a bounty to the whale ships, it required them to carry a proper quantity of provisions in proportion to their crews. When a regulation respecting a proper allowance of provisions take place, I would recommend some attention at the same time, to be paid to the accommodations of the crews, which are often from cupidity, worse than pig sties, especially if the pigs are uninsured. And ships should also be obliged to carry a just and reasonable quantity of water for the voyage. But these things will never be put to rights without a legal enactment.

These sentiments are from one who has served an apprenticeship to the sea, and has been more accustomed to use the serving-mallet, marlinspike and tar brush, the samson's post, double screws, and crowbar, than the pen, and whose fingers have not yet got the better of the crook which they received from heavy loads of hard work in their youth. Should there be anything not ship shape and Bristol fashion in it, fit to meet the public eye, as I am unaccustomed to appear before the public, will you, Mr. Editor, be so good as to correct it, and to square its yards by the lifts and braces, and give it a berth in your valuable magazine, which, by so ably advocating the merchant seaman's cause as it has done, has proved itself to be his true friend, and I trust is as well supported by merchant seamen as for their own sakes, it deserves to be.

I am, &c.,

E. S.

HARBOUR IN TOOTOOILLA ISLAND.-Navigator's Group, Pacific.

THE following useful directions for ships visiting the Navigator's Group, are from the Sydney Herald, having been recently reprinted in that valuable paper, the London Shipping Gazette. In repeating them in our pages, we take the opportunity of pointing out to the commanders, and officers of British merchant shipping generally, the great advantages that strangers would derive from a survey (even a rough one) of these unknown harbours. An afternoon devoted to such a purpose, would be amply sufficient, and they might be assured of their work being speedily published and diffused for the benefit of their brother seamen through the medium of this journal by forwarding it to the editor at the Admiralty, free of expense, a measure easily adopted on the arrival of ships in the port of London. In the present instance, a sketch of this harbour would have been most acceptable, and would have rendered the sailing directions of Captain