THERE are few matters of greater importance to a maritime country like England than the preservation and improvement of its harbours. To the extent of our sea-coast, and the bountiful distribution of safe and commodious harbours on so many parts of it, may be attributed much of that greatness ,and material prosperity with, which Providence has blessed us. Yet how little pains have been taken in times past to preserve those natural advantages. How many harbours that at one time would admit vessels of large size have since filled with a mud deposit, or have silted tip with sand or gravel, and are now only capable of affording shelter to small craft, or can only be entered at high water.

Even at a later day, and up to the present time, although a great many piers, moles, and breakwaters, have been constructed from time to time with more or less advantage, yet the causes which operate to silt up harbours, and to form bars and shoals about their entrances, were often not sufficiently studied in their construction, and no measures, or only ineffectual ones, have been since adopted to stay their gradual deterioration.

All such works are obviously of that character that they are incapable of resisting natural laws, and they must therefore be so carried out as to conform to them; for such is the overwhelming power of the sea, that a single gale may otherwise undo the labour of months. How important then is it that works which are to endure for ages as monuments of science usefully applied, or as evidences of the inconsiderate waste of labour, skill, time, and -wealth— how important is it, that such works should be subjected to the most careful and scientific consideration before they are commenced ! The cost of some works of this character is enormous; yet great as it is, where permanent national benefit is derived from them, their cost should never be grudged by the nation. Of this class we may enumerate the Plymouth Breakwater and the works at Portland and Holyhead, as examples. Others might be named where vast sums have been expended without corresponding beneficial results. As, however, it is not our object to animadvert on the failures of the past, but rather to inform our readers of what is about to be done, and may advantageously be done in future, we will proceed at once to recount the same as far as we are informed.

For some years past the feeling has been gaining ground, doubtless in consequence of the great loss of life and enormous loss of property which annually occur on our shores, that much of that loss might be prevented by constructing " harbours of refuge on some of the most exposed parts of the coast, and by improving other already existing harbours. The NATIONAL LIFE-BOAT INSTITUTION has from time to time endeavoured to draw public attention to the importance of adopting precautionary measures in this and other respects for the prevention of shipwreck, in addition to the provision of life-boats and other life apparatus for restoring the unfortunate sufferers after wrecks have occurred.

If it had not been that the shipowners of this country were individually protected from loss by shipwreck, through the almost universal custom of Marine Insurance, they would probably have been much more importunate in their demands on the Legislature to increase and improve the harbour accommodation of the United Kingdom than has hitherto been the case. But loss of property to the average amount of 1,500,OOOZ. annually has been quietly submitted to, because it has been nobody's interest to save it.

We trust that the important works now recommended by the Commission on Harbours of Refuge may be but a first instalment of progress in the right direction, to eventuate in the removal of many other causes, besides a deficiency of harbours, which are equally prolific of loss to life and property.

After these preliminary remarks we will proceed to state shortly what steps are now being taken in this important direction.

In the year 1858, a Select Committee of the House of Commons was appointed to consider the subject of the construction of Harbours of Refuge, and in the autumn of the same year a Commission, composed of distinguished practical men, Naval and others, with REAR-ADMIRAL JAMES HOPE, C.B., as their Chairman, was appointed to complete the inquiry gone into by the Select Committee. Authority was given to the said Commission, or to any three or more of its members, to visit and personally inspect such harbours and shores of the United Kingdom as they might deem advisable, 'and to examine and take evidence from all parties concerned.

Accordingly, the members of the Commission, under the able and assiduous presidency of their chairman, ADMIRAL HOPE, proceeded zealously and actively to work: they visited all those parts of the coasts where Harbours of Refuge had been proposed; procured all the local information on each that was obtainable, and on the 3rd of March, 1859, furnished their Report to Her Majesty, to which we now refer.

At the commencement of their labours the Commissioners appear to have decided that the wants of the Coast would be advantageously arranged under two heads.

Under the first they included harbours " which are required upon such parts of the coast as, being much frequented, are without any adequate place of safety into which vessels can run if overtaken by storms." Such harbours they denominated, "Harbours of Refuge," and quoted those at Holyhead, Kingstown, and Portland, as instances of their great utility.

Under the second head they placed those " rendered necessary for the purpose of saving life, by the entire want of other than Tidal or Bar Harbours on an extensive line of coast, much exposed to heavy on-shore gales, and the most largely frequented by the class of shipping least capable, under such circumstances, of keeping off a lee-shore." Harbours of the class required in such localities, they appropriately term Life Harbours.

The next classification adopted by the Commissioners has reference to the parties on whom should fall the cost of such works as should be recommended by them—they are arranged under three heads:— 1st. Where there should be an entire or virtual absence of local interest at the place selected for the site of a harbour; and, therefore, where the benefit accruing from its construction would be confined to the passing trade. There the benefit should be considered national, and the expense of its construction be defrayed solely from the public funds; the cost of maintenance being met by a moderate due on the vessels that might be engaged in any trade conducted in it, or, in default of the same, by an annual vote for the purpose.

2nd. Where there should be local interests of considerable amount, and therefore where the benefit from the construction of a harbour would be divided between the passing and the local trade. That the cost of construction should be defrayed, partly by a grant and partly by local funds, the amount assigned to each being proportioned to the benefit derived.

3rd. Where there should be a compare- tively small amount of benefit conferred on the passing trade, and the local interests be very large, and the benefits accruing to the passing trade be little more than incidental.

That the benefit should be considered as purely local, and the expense be locally defrayed ; but that, in some special cases, a loan might be granted, on undoubted security, proportionate in amount to the degree of refuge derived by the passing trade.

After recommending that all "areas of refuge," created in whole or in part by expenditure of the public funds, should be placed under direct Government control, and that no dues should be exacted from vessels resorting to them for shelter, the Commission then proceed to the general consideration of the different places visited by them, and which had been recommended as suitable positions for the construction of harbours or for the improvement of those already existing.

Commencing with the east coast of Scotland, they select Wick Bay, as a suitable place for a harbour of refuge for the passing trade, through the Pentland Frith, and as a port to which the boats of the northern herringfishery might run when overtaken by a gale.

The boats engaged in this important fishery number 1,700, and are manned by upwards of 8,000 men. The Report states that, " In the 80 miles of coast between Cromarty and the Pentland Frith, there is not a single harbour into which these boats can enter at low water, or if loaded, into which they can venture before half tide." The formation of a harbour of refuge here by the running out of two suitable piers, is estimated to cost 250,000?., of which amount the Commissioners recommend that the Government should make a grant for half that amount, on the condition that a similar amount be subscribed by the locality, the interest in the scheme being, they consider, equally divided between the locality and the passing trade.

To complete the harbour accommodation on the east of Scotland, they next recommend the formation of a Harbour of Refuge at Peterhead, by the enclosure of its south bay, at an estimated cost of about 300,000?., of which sum 100,000?. should be a Government grant, on the other 200,000?. being locally provided.

The advantages of Peterhead as a Harbour of Refuge are thus detailed:— " Its advanced position at the most prominent headland on the east coast of Scotland constitutes it a turning-point to the greater part of the trade frequenting the Murray and the Pentland Friths; it is much resorted to by wind-bound vessels, and is a favourite port of call for orders, as well as an excellent landfall and point of departure for the passing trade. It is the principal port of the Scotch whalers, and is a considerable station for the herring-fishery: it also presents the most fitting point for the collection of convoys, and for a naval station for th.e protection, of the trade on. that part of the coast of Scotland." Proceeding thence southwards, the Tyne and Hartlepool are recommended as sites for Life Harbours, and Filey as a Harbour of Refuge. Acting on the same principle as before stated, a grant is recommended of 250,000?. towards the works at the Tyne, to be met by 750,000?. locally raised. A grant of 500,000?. to Hartlepool, 500,000?.

more to be raised in the neighbourhood, and a grant of 800,000?. for the formation of a National Harbour of Refuge at Filey, it being solely for the benefit of the passing trade. The entrances to the Wear and the Tees, Whitby, Bridlington, and Runswick Bay, were also brought to the notice of the Commission by the several parties interested in them. It does not fell within the sphere of our remarks to enter on the comparative merits of each ; for that information we must refer our readers to the Commissioners' Report itself; our opinion, however, is that the selection of Filey for a National Harbour of Refuge on this very important part of the coast is a judicious one.

Passing then to the south-west coast of England, we come to the Bristol Channel, the trade of which amounts to one-sixth of the shipping and one-tenth of the tonnage of the United Kingdom. The choice of the Commission here lay between Swansea on its north shore, St. Ives and Padstow on the south, and Lundy Island in mid water.

Of these they selected St. Ives, " as from lying close to the route of all vessels entering or leaving either the English, Irish, or Bristol Channels, it would " embrace a wider scope of utility." They accordingly recommend a Government grant of 400,000?.

for the formation of a Harbour of Refuge here.

They also recommend the sum of 40,0001.

to be granted for the improvement of Padstow Harbour, by the cutting down the rocky promontory called Stepper Point, to lessen the danger to vessels taking its narrow entrance in bad weather, by creating a true wind at the entrance of the harbour instead of the baffling winds which now prevail there in north-west gales. The Commissioners recommend half the above sum only to be granted in the first instance, as an experiment, its efficacy not being deemed altogether free from doubt, although some benefit has already been derived from Stepper Point being partially cut away. Crossing to the Irish shore, the Commission select as a Harbour of Refuge Carlingford Lough, on the north-east coast—a fine natural harbour, but having its entrance blocked up by a flat with only 12 ft. of water on it at low . water of spring-tides. They recommend an expenditure of 50,000?. on the removal of a portion of this*flat, to form a channel 600 ft.

wide, with a depth of 24 ft. at low water spring-tides. The same to be provided for by a public grant.

The Commissioners next recommend a similar grant, for the improvement of Waterford Harbour, on the south coast of Ireland, in precisely the same manner as at Carlingford, viz., by deepening a channel, of 600 ft. in width, through a flat, formed of clay, which at present blocks up its entrance at low water. These two harbours, the one on the east, and the other on the south coast of Ireland, together with the harbours of Kingstown and Cork, they think afford all the shelter that is required for shipping on that part of the United Kingdom.

Finally, the Commissioners propose a grant of 50,000?., to be met by a corresponding sum from the public fund of the island, for the formation of a Harbour of Refuge at Douglas, in the Isle of Man, " sufficient in area to meet the requirements of the passing trade—afford security for passenger traffic and postal communication—and to give the necessary shelter to the large fleet of fishing-boats belonging to the port, numbering 600 in all, manned by 4,200 hands, with an addition of 2,000 employed as carriers from the fishing-station to the various markets." The total estimated cost of the above works recommended by the Commission, on the coasts of the United Kingdom, amounts to 3,990,000?., of which sum 2,365,000?., is proposed by them to be defrayed from the public fund, and the remaining 1,625,000?. to be locally raised.

They consider that ten years would suffice for the completion of the whole of them, and that the annual vote by Parliament for their construction should be not less than 250,000?.

In addition to the above large expenditure on great national works, the Commissioners recommend assistance in the shape of loans for the improvement of existing harbours; with respect to such they observe:—" We are of opinion that there are numerous eligible sites for harbours, where an outlay of inconsiderable amount, compared with the advantages to be received, would render them safe havens for commercial shipping. Small sums devoted to the removal of natural impediments, while promoting local benefits, Would afford employment and encouragement to navigation and commerce, and to large sections of the community engaged in the fisheries." And again:—" There are many tidal and other harbours susceptible of great improvement, situated on various points of the coast, exclusive of those to which we have recommended that grants be made, where sums of money expended in deepening or improving them would contribute, in a very great degree, to save life and property. In fact, the improvements of existing harbours would, in many instances, do more to promote those objects than an expenditure of an equal sum applied to only one harbour." The manner of granting these loans they propose to be through a board especially appointed for the purpose under the direct control of Parliament, who would consider and determine on the merits of each case after its receiving the sanction of the Boards of Trade and Admiralty ; and would report the same to the " Loan Commissioners, when the application would be finally disposed of upon the principles which Parliament might lay down for the regulation of their proceedings." The Report goes into many details which our limits will not allow us to enter on.

Their intended effect is expressed in the following paragraph :— " By the arrangement proposed, the management and supervision of the harbours generally of the kingdom would fall under the jurisdiction of a department of Government, and the greatest facilities would be afforded for carrying out local practical improvements without unnecessary obstacles being interposed. At present, if any Harbour Commissioners, Dock Trustees, or other parties interested in local improvements are desirous of raising money for the purpose ol erecting public works, or if they want to enlarge those already in existence, they are compelled to obtain, for the purpose, a special public or private Act, which, if opposed, involves the contending parties in a ruinous expense, and thus wastes the funds intended for the object in view. Whilst these expensive contentions are being carried on session after session before Parliament, all kinds of improvements remain suspended; and even when there is no opposition, the cost of obtaining the Act too often forms a very considerable part of the expenditure incurred." The recommendations to aid by public loans in the improvement of already existing harbours, and to facilitate the same by simplifying the modes of obtaining such aid, are, we think, of the utmost value. The cost of one vast Harbour of Refuge, such as at Holyhead, or Portland, or Dover, would, if judiciously expended, suffice to restore the usefulness of many a smaller one which time or neglect had deteriorated. We trust, therefore, that the recommendations of the Commission on this head may be carried into effect, and thus every facility be afforded for multiplying ports of shelter for the small craft of our fishing and coasting trade.

In a Supplement to their Report, the Commission add detailed descriptions of proposed improved constructions of piers, breakwaters, &c. As this is a subject so exclusively scientific, and one regarding which the most eminent scientific men are at issue, we do not feel called on to go into it; but as an indication of the views of the Commission, we will conclude with a quotation of the opinion expressed, first by the " Select Committee on Shipwrecks," and coincided in by the Commission, having reference to the plans of " floating breakwaters " submitted to them, as follows:—• " Considering the expense of constructing and maintaining them in repair, compared with the durability of solid breakwaters, which should be calculated to endure for ages, your Committee are of opinion that, whatever may be decided on as to the formation of Harbours of Refuge, such national works should possess the most perfect solidity to resist the force of any sea, afford shelter to the trade, and the great and essential advantage of having powerful batteries erected on them." With that opinion we entirely concur.