WE have on several occasions called attention, in the columns of the Life-Soot Journal, to the great necessity that existed for additional harbours of refuge being constructed on some points of the coasts.

Many of our ports, with their great and increasing commerce, are far from being as safe of access as they might be, and the natural result is, that an enormous waste of life and property takes place every year on our waters. The destruction of property is estimated at 1,500,OOOJ. per annum; and the lives lost are between 800 and 900.

These figures.are truly alarming to contemplate.

We have been accustomed to think that the casualties on board American steamboats showed the very excess of Anglo- Saxon recklessness, but they hardly surpass the average given above. What would be the impression on the public mind if once in every winter a grand three-decker went down off some part of the coast with all hands on board, like the Royal George many years ago ? Yet the actual state of things is just as shocking,—the cost of life being quite as great, and that of money very much greater.

We are glad to observe that one important, and, we trust we may add, decisive step, has at length been taken towards the prevention of these annual calamities.

The Select Committee on Harbours of Refuge, which was appointed early last year, and which continued its investigations through a part of the past Session of Parliament, has laid before the House of Commons a luminous and forcible description of the evils existing and the remedies required.

It cannot be said that the coasts of these islands are ill provided with natural harbours ; indeed, if such tad been the ease, we should never have been so eminently a nautical people, for national propensities arise out of national opportunities. Still, along considerable portions of the coast line the deficiency of ports is grievously felt, and the danger to vessels by tempests is proportionately severe.

The substance of the following summary and remarks on the Report of the Committee is taken from the Nautical Magazine:— The Committee commence their Report with a general View of the enormous increase of British and foreign tonnage frequenting our ports, which increase they show to have been clearly one hundred and thirty-six per cent, in fourteen years, or, from 1843 to 1857; that the increase of vessels built in the same interval is almost two bandied per cent., and the number of masters employed in 1849, compared with that of 1857, is increased by 23,776; that these several proofs of our commercial activity are still accumulating year by year, and therefore require that " an effort should be made on public grounds to afford the greatest pos- sible security to our shipping." Such increase of shipping brings with it an inevitable result thus alluded to by the Committee: —" That the more crowded the waters around our shores become by increased traffic, the greater must be the risk of accidents from collisions and otherwise, and the more urgent must be the necessity for greater accommodation and provision for safety." These are stringent reasons for the Committee to proceed upon; but there is still another powerful appeal to their consideration.

Inevitable as the accidents from such causes are, no less inevitable is the loss of life and property incurred by them.

The fearful amount in loss of life and property could be estimated from the number of wrecks, in some years, as amounting to three whole ships in two days, or a ship and a half daily. And by the Report before us, this is no exaggerated amount. The Report says,—" The total ascertained losses from all causes, therefore, amounted to 2,184 vessels (in five years, 1852 to 1856), or at the average of nearly 437 in each year.

The total reported loss of life connected with these casualties, were 4,148 persons, or upon an average of five years, nearly 830 in • each year. In 1854 the loss of life amounted to no fewer than 1,549 persons. The value of the property lost by total wrecks is estimated at 1,000,000?. a-year at least, and by other losses and casualties at 500,000?., making together 1,500,0002. as the annual loss to the country from these casualties on our coast." The loss of life and property arising from wrecks and collisions at sea is thus rated by the Committee, at 830 of the former, and 1,500,0001, independent of that connected with the fisheries.

With these tangible and serious facts before them, the Committee proceed with their business at once, and drawing a distinction between trading ports and ports of refuge, refer directly to our sea-coasts and select the most dangerous portions, where works of a national character are necessary and practicable." This looks like business; and we rejoice to see that the source of so much loss of life and property is in a fair way of being removed. It has long been a monstrous evil lying at the root of our maritime supremacy and commercial prosperity.

Independently of the three great works now in progress at Holyhead, Portland, and Dover, the Committee proceed to point out the works which they are of opinion are most urgently required in the several districts of coast above mentioned.

" First,—The East Coast of Scotland." There appear to be three places named on this coast by the Committee as favourable for the construction of a harbour of rerhge, viz., Wick, Peterhead, and Fraserburgh; and they state " the majority of evidence is, however, in favour of Wick, with reference especially to the fishing trade." " Second,—The North-East Coast of England." The earliest consideration is claimed by the Committee for the dangerous coast between St. Abbs and Flamborough Heads, where a "harbour of refuge of dimensions suitable to its large and rapidly-increasing traffic, is urgently required." "Third,—The Coast from Land's End to Hartland Point and the Bristol Channel.'' This portion of the coast is separated by the Committee into two parts. On the coast from the Land's End to Hartland Point two places are strongly recommended, —St. Ives and Padstow; and in the Bristol Channel the Mumbles Head, Lundy Island, and, Clovelly. In. reference to the coast containing St. Ives and Padstow, it is stated by the Committee that the vessels frequenting it are principally small coasting-vessels, " On the other band, the Bristol Channel is frequented by foreign-going ships, rapidly increasing in number, and of large tonnage." They add; also "that any place which is finally determined upon for affording refuge to ships frequenting the Bristol Channel, should have special reference to the rapid development of the coal and iron fields of South Wales, and to the increasing sea traffic which is arising therefrom." Hence a spacious harbour in a convenient position for access and departure is that required.

"Fourth,—The Coasts of Ireland and the Isle of Man." The points selected on the coast of Iceland are Caclingford Bay, the Skerries, near Portrush, Waterford, and Wexford.

Carlingford and Waterford are stated to have [peculiar advantages; but doubts are expressed of Wexford. " With regard to the Skerries, Portrush, on the Northern coast, the circumstances are very peculiar," say the Committee, and that "the facilities for making a first-class harbour of refuge at this point (Skerries) are ably and clearly pointed out by Sir JOHN BUEGOYNE " and others, and that it is a work well worthy of favourable consideration.

The foregoing embraces the several points mentioned by the Committee, who leave to nautical men the determination of the precise places, as well as the particulars of formation respecting the harbours themselves, which, with the estimated expenses, they sum up' in the following statement :— " The various works which your Committee has thus enumerated as being needful purely or mainly for harbours of refuge, and which appear to it to be of a character which can only be executed as national public works, and as such, under the direction and' control of the Government, are :— 1. A harbour of refuge on the North- East Coast of Scotland, estimated to cost from 80,000*. to 335.000Z., according to the site that may be selected.

2. A harbour of refuge on the North.- East Coast of England, at an estimated cost of from 800,000*. to 860,000*.

3. An extension of the present harbour of St. Ives, at a cost of 176,000*., or if Padstow is adopted, at a cost not exceeding 35,000*.

4. A harbour of refuge at the Mumbles, or at some place in the Bristol Channel, at a cost of 300,000*.

5. An improvement of the harbour at.

Carlingford, at a cost of 20,000*.

6. An improvement in the harbour at Waterfowl, at a cost of 20,000*.

7. The construction of a harbour at the Skerries, Portrush, at a cost of 100,000*.

8. A pier in the Isle of Man, at a cost of 40,000*.; making a total not exceeding the sum of 2,000,000*.; or, if spread over a period of ten yews, at the rate of 200,000*.

a-year.".