Untitled

Evening Star, Issue 3977, 23 November 1875, Page 3

His Misfortune, not His Fault.—"lt in not our fault that we are red-headed and small ” editor; “and the next time bnU 1 th ° He l over " rown rural roosters in a well th n + rea ° beH (lown for our head, and au--n hj!« bi SO T i fe!low haß loßfc a rose-bud out of hia button-hole, there will be trouble.”

OUR LONDON LETTER. September 10. Respecting the collision referred to in my last—that of the Royal yacht Alberta with the Mistletoe —two coroner’s inquests have been held. In the first, which was held on the bodies of the sailing m-ster and Miss Feel, the Jury were unable to agree, though it has beeu stated that eleven out of the thirteen were iu favor of a verdict of manslaughter against the officers of the royal yacht. The jurors accordingly were bound over to appear at the a-to. A second inquest has been held on the body of the mate, which was recovered sub cqnentiy, with a verdict which, tliough it acquit; the Piince Leiningen and Captain Welch of criminal carelessness, nevertheless attributes the accident to the high rate of speed maintained by the Alberta, and to of a proper look-out on board her. _ 1 his verdict was received with great indignation by the people in Court, who were evidently of opinion that the accident had beeii occasioned by nothing short of gross negligence, and expressed their sentiments by hissing and hooting the PJnce and Captain Welch when they appeared in the streets. Indeed, this sad accident Las occasioned a wide-spread and most bitter feeling of indignation, which has unfortunately been increased by somewhat indiscreet action, on the part of tre Admiralty and the Court officials. Her Majesty, it will bo remembered, wrote a letter to Prince Leiningen expressing her satisfaction with the efforts made to save life after the collision had happened—a letter, which, in itself, everyone must admit to have been most proper. Bat Prince Leiningen read part of this letter to the coroner’s jury, and it has been contended that he could not rightly do so, because the letter was not evidence, and it was denounced as an attempt to excite sympathy in his favor. Then, shortly after the second inquest, General Ponsonby, by the Queen’s command, addressed a letter to Lord Exeter, the president of the Yacht Club, pointing out that it was “a common practice for private ymhts to approach the Royal yacht when Her Majesty was on board,” either from motives of ‘‘loyalty or curiosity,” and requesting that measures should be taken for the practice to be discontinued. The immediate effect of this letter was very unfortunate. In some quarters it was held to be a traversing of the decision of a court of justice, and an attempt to shift the blame of the catastrophe on to the shoulders of Mr Heywood, or the late master of his yacht. Of course it was the court officials only who were held responsible for this missive, but the indignation it evoked was almost furious, and even the ‘ Times ’ in a leading article, very moderately worded, expressed regret that the suggestion to the private yachtsmen was not accompanied by some intimation that the necessary measures had been adopted on board the Royal yact for preventing the recurrence of any similar accident. In explanation, however, of the real purport of General Poasonby’s letter a communication has been addressed to the lading papers stating that the letter had been written three weeks previously—before the second inquest was held —and when there was no reason to expect a second inquest; that the letter was intended sole!}' to convey the simple request therein contained, and that no blame whatever was attributed to the owner of the Mistletoe, or any other person. Now as regards the Admiralty, I mentioned in my last letter that an official inquiry into the cause »f the accident was appointed to take place, but thus far we have had no more of it. The inquiry was to be a private one, but for what reason is difficult to conceive, unless the Admiralty wished to protect itself against a claim for compensation in the event of the court-martial condemning the action of the Royal yacht commander. The Admiralty has now stated that it will give LSOO to the widow of the captain of the Mistletoe and L4OO to the widow of the mate, but the grace of this action is destroyed by its not having been taken until a public subscription was set on foot, and the gift in each case is clogged with the condition that it is to be taken as compensation in full for any claim against Her Majesty’s Government. This seems very much like admitting the culpability of Prince Leiningen and Captain 'Welch, for, were they not te blame, there would be no need for such a stipulation, and the gifts night be made purely as compassionate allowances. But what has done more than anything else to arouse popular anger is the statement, vouched for by the ‘ Times,’ that the entire costs of defending Prince Leiningen and Captain Welch, at the recent coroner’s inquest (and which are said to amount to L 2,000), are to he defrayed out of the consolidated fund ; that is, the expense of defending those officers is to he borne by people of whom the great majority believe the accident arose from their wanton carelessness. I think I shall not be far out in predicting that the matter cannot rest whore it now stands. People will want to know whether any Admiralty inquiry has been held, and, if so, with what result. They will be apt, too, to compare the circumstances of the Vanguard’s collision with that of the Alberta, to remark that one happened in a dense fog, and the other on a bright, sunny day, and they may probably also take careful note of the respective punishments or reprimands awarded in each case.