How many " monster wrecks" has it been our painful duty to chronicle during the past few years! How sad is the reflection that their number appears rather to be on the increase than on the decline! During the present year alone have two great ships perished on our own coasts, each consigning hundreds of human beings to a watery grave. But the other day it was the noble clipper ship Pomona, of 1800 tons, a few hours only out of port, her voyage scarce commenced, mistaking a light, running on an Irish bank, and drowning no less than 385 of the unfortunate beings who had trusted in her. To-day it is the passenger- J r o steamer Royal Charter, at the termination of her long homeward voyage, thrown upon her native shore, and yielding no less than 455 of her unhappy inmates to the cold grasp of death, instead of restoring them to the warm embraces of long-expectant relatives and friends.

A wholesale destruction of life and property under more melancholy circumstances it is difficult to conceive.

The Royal Charter had sailed from the distant colony of Victoria, in Australia, on the 26th of August, 1859, with 494 persons on board, the majority of whom were returning emigrants; these having at last attained the object of their distant pilgrimage, like the laden bee were once more homeward bound, carrying with them the fruit of their labours, and anticipating, maybe, a long and tranquil enjoyment of the same in " their own, their native land." But, alas! when apparently on the point of realization, these natural but too often vain anticipations were scattered to the winds; and, as in the parable of old, to each the awful mandate went forth, " This night thy soul shall be required of thee!" This unfortunate ship, on the 25th of November, having hugged too closely the Anglesey coast in search of a pilot, was caught in the late fearful gale which devastated almost the entire coast of Great Britain, and was compelled to anchor; but carrying away all her anchoring-gear, she drifted on the rocks, and then quickly broke in halves. Although a line was carried to the shore by an intrepid and skilful swimmer from the ship, named JOSEPH ROIXJERS, a Maltese seaman, but few persons had time to avail themselves of its aid ere the vessel and all beside were engulfed together.

Two important questions here naturally arise:— 1st. Was the anchoring-gear, that is to say, were the anchors and cables of this ship, and are the anchors and cables of our merchant-ships in general, of sufficient strength, in sufficient number, of sufficient weight, and sufficiently in readiness for immediate use, to provide, as far as possible, for the safety of the vessels and their occupants in cases of emergency ? 2nd. Was this iron ship, and are our iron ships in general, by their strength of build and scientific construction, calculated to afford, as far as possible, safety to those on board them in the event of their coming into collision with the shore or with other ships? On the occasion of the wreck of the Pomona in April last, we took the opportunity to remark on some of the imperfections of our system of lighthouses, the loss of that vessel having been previously occasioned by the mistaking one light for another.

The present case affords an opportunity for some reflections on the two points above alluded to—viz., the presumed inefficiency in too many instances of the anchoririggear of our merchant-vessels, and the presumed insufficient strength of our iron ships.

Our remarks will be principally devoted to the second point: on the first we will only observe, that numberless wrecks are occasioned every year by vessels dragging their anchors, or breaking their cables, and by not having their spare or sheet anchor clear for letting go. It is therefore only a truism to remark on the importance of the anchoring-gear of a ship being carefully selected and of proportionate strength to the duty devolving on it. The loss of the magnificent steam-ship Prince, off Balaklava, on the coast of the Crimea, with her immense, and at that time invaluable cargo of military clothing, the destruction of which occasioned such deplorable suffering and loss of life to our brave soldiers before Sebastopol, was a striking case in point.

Had her anchors been somewhat heavier, and her cables somewhat larger, she might possibly have rode out the gale in safety.

The loss of the Royal Charter is another striking illustration; for who can say that if her third anchor had been clear for letting go, which it appears not to have been, (the ship not even being fitted with a third hawse-hole,) who can say, that if it had been clear, and let go in proper time, it might not have prevented the fearful loss of life and of valuable property which took place ? A standard size of anchors and cables proportionate to tonnage; a periodical examination and testing of chain-cables, as is practised in Her Majesty's ships; and an occasional careful examination of the anchoring- gear of at least every passenger-ship by the Surveyors of the Board of Trade or oi the Emigration Commissioners—would probably be the means of preventing many wrecks and much loss of life.

On the second head, we need only advert to the number of iron ships which have seen wrecked, and have quickly broken up— a fact known to all who are conversant with the records of our maritime losses during the past few years, to convince every one of the importance of careful, diligent, and scientific inquiry, as to whether the present system of constructing iron vessels may not be greatly improved on. It has now been practically as well as theoretically shown, that iron ships, as now built, break up, generally by separating amidships, far sooner than wooden vessels, occasioning thereby a corresponding increase in loss of lives. Of this fact the cases'of the Royal Charter and of the mail-steamer Indian are the two most recent illustrations.

We have, in former papers, remarked on the too frequent want of strength and general unseaworthiness of our merchant-ships, as being in great measure occasioned by the usual custom of insuring vessels to their full value, and sometimes in excess of it, so as to leave the owners little or no pecuniary interest in their safety, and inducing them to build ships as cheaply as possible, rather than as strongly as possible. We propose, more especially, to quote the present case as the last instance amongst many of the " insufficient strength of iron ships as now built" and, hi the name of humanity, to urge on our Legislature, our Government, our shipowners, our ship-builders, and on our countrymen generally, the great importance of the subject, and the necessity that exists for adopting a stronger mode of constructing iron vessels, and especially those which are employed for the conveyance of large numbers of persons, such as emigrant-ships, troop-ships, and other passenger- craft.

It may be replied, Where is the remedy ? If it could be shown that iron vessels might be constructed in a stronger and more desirable manner, surely shipowners would be but too glad to possess themselves of such an improved article I We fear that, as stated above, shipowners are not interested in having the best article, but the cheapest article. Viewed even in a pecuniary, and not in a philanthropic point of view, the subject is one of national importance, for although by the system of insurance the individual may protect himself, yet every loss of valuable property is as much a loss to the whole community as it would be if uninsured; the loss is merely transferred to other parties, and divided amongst a greater number.

As to the question of a remedy, it can be easily made plain to the meanest capacity, that the art of iron ship-building has not kept pace with the general scientific acquirements of the age, at least so far as strength and durability are concerned, which properties must always be amongst the chief desiderata in all human works.

The great weakness of iron ships appears to be their tendency to hog, or break their backs, or to break altogether asunder in the 'midship part: they have insufficient longitudinal strength. There is the keel, to be sure, corresponding to the backbone of the living animal, but which nevertheless is capable of great improvement and strengthening.

There are the ribs and beams, corresponding to the ribs of the animal, which in the latter keep the body sufficiently distended and in shape, to contain the various vital organs that sustain life, and which have sufficient strength in a great measure to protect them from being crushed or injured.

But the skin, that beautiful, wondrous, seamless garment which so closely and marvellously envelops the animal, yet permits of every requisite movement of its limbs and organs; the strength of which is so great that, even in the smaller animals, it can with difficulty be broken, and which in the larger, such as the elephant, hippopotamus, and rhinoceros, is enormous; without the protection of which the animal frame would speedily fall asunder—Where in the iron ship shall we find its counterpart ? Can the thin iron plating with its numerous perpendicular lines of weakness, occasioned by the numberless rivetings of the short iron plates, be compared to the animal skin, without one weak spot over its entire surface ? It cannot be so. Yet, as far as possible, they should be assimilated, for the same important use is required of each.

In wooden ships a much nearer approximation is made to the animal skin, since, owing to the greater length of the planking, and their narrowness as compared with the iron plates, the lines of weakness occasioned by the rivets are avoided. The greater length of fibre of wood and its greater elasticity may also be sources of additional strength.

An apt illustration of the strength of a skin of planking only, is that of the diagonal system in boat-building, on which principle the larger boats in the Royal Navy are constructed, as are also the life-boats of the NATIONAL LIFE-BOAT INSTITUTION. Boats built on this plan are almost without ribtimbers, having only a few short floor timbers, their double diagonal planking being relied on solely to afford the requisite strength, and they are known to be the strongest description of boats.

The well-known shipbuilder, Mr. HALL, of Aberdeen, has successfully applied the same principle to building wooden ships, and the Shomberg clipper ship, of 2,600 tons, which was unfortunately wrecked on the Australian coast in 1857, was built on this principle by Mr. HALL, and was supposed to be the strongest wooden ship in our own or any other merchant navy.

Mr. RALPH TAYLERSON, of Port Glasgow, has now proposed to apply, to a great extent, the same principle to iron ships, and apparently with every prospect of success. As the comparative shortness of the iron plating, which we suppose is unavoidable, prevents the application of the principle in precisely the same manner as in wooden vessels, Mr. TAYLERSON places the frames, corresponding to the timbers or ribs of wooden vessels in a direction diagonal to the keel and sides of the ship; each frame, like the planks of the diagonal boat, passing from one gunwale across the keel and up to the other gunwale continuously, the iron plating being attached horizontally, as now. As the lines of riveting, of the planking, or lines of weakness bhus run diagonally or obliquely to transverse sections of the ship, whilst the cross or deck seams run parallel to such sections, and are Doited to different frames on the one side to what they are on the other, a manifest vast increase of strength to the whole structure against transverse fracture is obtained. Mr. TAYLERSON also introduces other improvements, especially in the keel, to impart further strength. We hope to give in a future Number the substance of a lecture on his invention, by Mr. TAYLERSON, recently delivered at the hall of the United Service Institution in London, illustrated-by designs furnished to us by the inventor for the better elucidation of his plan.

We think the importance of this subject cannot be overrated; and we implore all builders and designers of iron ships, whilst the loss of the Royal Charter and of the Indian, and the cries of their dying inmates, in imagination, are yet ringing in their ears, carefully to consider Mr. TAYLERSON'S propositions, and to adopt them if no better can be discovered.