Mr. Gossett was, however, inexorable, although the captain pleaded that he was nearly ready for sea, and there was not time to get a boat built. At length the difficulty was got over by the _Queen of the Thames_ getting the _Lady Jocelyn’s_ long boat and the latter ship giving an order for a new one in its place. As may be imagined Captain McDonald, in anything but a good humour, quickly sailed for London. On the way there the ship got wrecked close to the Cape of Good Hope, and that very boat which the captain had so reluctantly taken with him was the principal means of saving all hands from a watery grave! I may just add that the _Queen of the Thames_ was classed AA I at Lloyd’s, a much higher class than that of the _Alert_, and yet Mr. Gossett, I am glad to say, refused to recognise the certificate—although undoubtedly a high one—and had the courage to carry out what he believed to be a measure for the safety of all concerned. During the progress of the arguments in the Kilpatrick v. Huddart, Parker and Co. appeal case, Mr. Justice Hood, in commenting on the rig of the _Alert_, said: “No doubt had there been another mast in the ship persons would have come forward and said that was the cause of the disaster.” While Chief Justice Madden, on the same subject, was of opinion that “the first thing a captain would do, if there was a second mast with a sail up, would probably be to strip it off like a shot.” With regard to both of these opinions, although I feel constrained to comment at length on them, I must, for the sake of brevity, content myself with the remark that the dictum or logic they contain “may do for the marines, but certainly won’t do for sailors.”