INSURANCE OF FISHING-BOATS. 127 



argument if argument it can be called that I have ever 

 heard adduced in its favour, is that it must be just and 

 equitable because it has universally been acted upon ever 

 since vessels have been underwritten. It might just as 

 well be said that any old law, which circumstances and 

 improved knowledge have rendered obsolete, but which 

 has not been expunged from the Statute Book, is just and 

 equitable ; or, as Pope puts it, that " whatever is, is right." 

 History teaches us that, in times gone by, it was a universal 

 custom in England to cause an accused person to walk 

 barefoot over red-hot irons, and that he or she was adjudged 

 to be guilty or innocent according as he or she was injured 

 or not. But because such an ordeal was universal, it does 

 not follow that it was just and equitable ; and I fail to 

 comprehend the logic which leads to the conclusion that a 

 deduction on account of new materals used in repairing 

 an old vessel must necessarily be equitable because it is 

 universal. Such reasoning, if reasoning it can be called, is 

 simply fallacious. It is true that damage cannot be repaired 

 without labour, but the same labour must be employed, 

 whether the damage be repaired with new or old materials, 

 and, provided that the materials be sound and good, and 

 fit for the purpose, as they ought to be, it matters not 

 whether they be new or old. Why, then, should a boat- 

 owner be mulcted in an extra sum for the repair of the 

 damage, when he already pays his proportionate part 

 according as he may be insured for two-thirds, three- 

 fourths, or any other amount ? The labour would be the 

 same, whether the materials were new or old, and ought 

 not in justice to be charged for in any case ; and were the 

 materials used simply suitable for the purpose, there could 

 be no pretence whatever to charge for them at all. To 

 say that a vessel, after being repaired, must be much better 



