On this subject an interesting return to an order of the House of Commons was lately made by the management of Lloyd’s, and has caused some discussion in the public prints.  The return applies to the four years ending December 1850; and during this period, it appears that the number of collisions, wrecks, and other accidents at sea, was 13,510; being at the rate of 3377 per annum, 9 per diem, or 1 for every 2-3/4 hours.  Commenting on these details, the Times observes, that ’it must not be understood that every accident implies a total wreck, with the loss of all hands.  If a ship carries away any of her important spars, or, on entering her port, strikes heavily against a pier, whereby serious damage is occasioned, the accident is duly registered in this pithy chronicle of Lloyd’s.  Nevertheless, as we glance up and down the columns, it is no exaggeration to say, that two-thirds of the accidents recorded are of the most serious description.  We are unable to say to what degree this register of Lloyd’s can be accepted as a fair index to the tragedies which are of such hourly occurrence upon the surface of the ocean.  If all were known, we fear that this average of accident or wreck every 2-3/4 hours would be fearfully increased.  The truth must he told.  The incapacity of too many of the masters in the British mercantile marine has been the pregnant cause of loss to their owners and death to their crews.  Men scarcely competent to take the responsibility of an ordinary day’s work, or, if competent, of notoriously intemperate habits, were placed in command of sea-going ships through the parsimony or nepotism of the owners.  The result of the educational clauses in the Mercantile Marine Bill of last session, will no doubt be to provide a much larger body of well-trained men, from among whom our shipowners can select the most competent persons for command.’

These observations called forth a reply from the President of the Seaman’s Association, vindicating mariners from the charges so brought against them.  A few passages from the letter of this respondent are worth noticing.  ‘Are British sailors,’ he asks, ’really so bad as you represent?  If so, then you condemn by implication the seamen of the United States, for they are also Anglo-Saxon.  Let me direct your attention to a few facts bearing out this assertion.  The desertions from the royal navy in 1846 (see Parliamentary Returns) were 2382; this is about 1 out of every 14 seamen annually.  Nearly the whole of these men keep to the United States’ service.  Again, the desertions from Quebec in consequence of three things—­first, low wages; secondly, register-tickets; thirdly, the payment of 1s., exacted from every man on shipment and discharge, to a shipping office, to uphold the Mercantile Marine Act, for which the men receive no value—­were upwards of 1400 this season; and about 4000 from all other ports.  From American statistics, it is proved that two-thirds of the seamen sailing in ships of the United States are British subjects; and if American ships are preferred to British, it must be because they are manned by our fine spirited tars.  A large proportion of their ships are commanded by Englishmen.’