WE have frequently had occasion to allude to the feet—to the astounding fact—that an annual average of more than 700 human beings suffer death by drowning, from shipwreck or collision, on the shores and in the waters of the United Kingdom alone. We call it an astounding fact, and we regard it as such in more senses than one. It is so from its altogether exceptional character, f jr no approach to such & wholesale destruction of human life, from the same cause, exists, or ever has existed, oh the coasts of any other country. It is so if it be merely viewed as an indication of the enormous sea traffic to and from the shores of this great centre of the world's commerce. And is it not likewise astounding that, in these days of. .philanthropy and human progress, when the value of human life is so much more highly appreciated than it was in bygone times, so large a sacrifice of lives, and so great a drain on our maritime resources, should be thus quietly acquiesced in without any serious national inquiry as to the practicability of reducing its amount.

In considering this important question, we will briefly state what has been and is being done to reduce this great amount of loss of life, and suggest in what manner we believe it may be further reduced.

The subject naturally fells under two heads: 1st. As to the means to be provided on(the shore for affording rescue to shipwrecked persons, and for preventing shipwreck. 2nd. As to the means for providing for the safety of vessels' crews on board their vessels.' On the first head it is evident that, whatever means are gdopted, must be supplied either by the Government, "or by associations supported by the voluntary contributions of the public. On the second head, it is as evident that such means can only be provided by the owners of ships themselves, in their own vessels. Again, the means to be provided,'whether on shore or on board ships, may be subdivided into preventive and remedial measures.

As regards the means available on shore, the only preventive measures that can be provided are:— 1st. The improvement of existing barbonrs and the creation (artificially) of. new ones, and the maintaining a sufficient number of lighthouses, beacons, and buoys.

2nd. The placing of life-boats round the coast, wherever wrecks are frequent and there are men to be found ready to work them. - 3rd. To provide at places where lifeboats cannot be made available, the rocket and mortar life-saving apparatus. * With regard to the improvement and construction of harbours, opinion is somewhat divided as to the parties on whom their expense should fall. Many think that, being solely.-for the use and benefit of shipping, their cost should be altogether defrayed by the owners of shipping; and that it would be a misuse of *he public funds to appropriate any portion of them to works which are for the especial benefit of a class only. We hold a different opinion.

Undoubtedly the improvement and enlargement of harbours and of docks, &c., for purely* commercial convenience, should be and always will be readily underteken by the local shipping interests; but great works, such as harbours of refuge and the extensive improvement of harbours for the promotion of safety only, must generally be quite bejond &§ means of the" local ghipowners, whilst the coasts and safety harbours of a great commercial and maritime country, which are frequently undergoing changes and deterioration from natural causes, appear to be so essentially a national property, and contribute so greatly to the national welfare, as to indicate that they properly should be maintained at the public cost. The principal work§ of this character which have teen or are being executed at the public expense, are the Plymouth Breakwater, and the harbours of Holyhead, Dover, Alderney, and Portland. As we have signified in a former Paper,, we think their number might with advantage be added to, and improvement made in other existing harbours.

As regards the provision of life-boats, difference of opinion also exists to some extent, as it is considered by many that they also should be provided by Government from the public funds. From this opinion we likewise dissent, as the present system of providing and working life-boats from funds raised by voluntary contributions, aided to a certain extent by the Government, is found to be fully adequate to the performance of this most important work; and as we believe that the men who alone can be depended on to manage the boats, viz., the local coast boatmen, pan be more readily brought to co-operate in the work *with the general public, under the immediate superintendence of local honorary committees of respectable inhabitants in their own neighbourhoods, than they would under the direction of officers of the coast-guard or other Government functionaries. ? The first life-boats were built between ihe years 1790 and 1800, and placed at Shields and one or two other ports on the east coast of England: they may therefore be considered to be coeval with the present century. In the year 1851 they had increased in number nominally to about 90, but of these not more than half were in an effective s tate. The greater number were maintained at trading pprtSj chiefly from the proceeds of voluntary tolls, paid by the owners of vessels frequenting the ports, and superintended by local committees. Others on the open coast were supplied and maintaJBe*} fey county or loea} associations, supported by voluntary contributions, some of them being aided by the then National Institution for the Preservation of Life from Shipwreck, now the NATIONAL LIFE-BOAT INSTITUTION. Many of these local bodies had, however, relaxed their exertions, and, as above intimated, their boats had fallen into disuse and become ineffective, and indeed in many cases altogether unseaworthy.

In the year 1850, however, the DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND offered a prize of 100Z.

for the best model of a life-boat, and in the following year became the President of the above-named Institution, which shortly after set resolutely to work to place efficient lifeboats on the coast, undertaking |heir direct superintendence with the aid of local committees formed in each locality. Suitable regulations for their management were drawn up; a liberal scale of payment to their crews established, and their quarterly exercise in their boats arranged for. The title of the Society was afterwards changed to that of the " ROYAL NATIONAL LIFE-BOAT INSTITUTION," and a new era of its existence commenced. It was also at that time arranged with the Board of Trade that the Society should confine its exertions to the establishment of life-boats, and the bestowal of honorary and pecuniary rewards for all services to shipwrecked persons; and that the duty of providing the coast with the mortar and rocket life-saving apparatus, which had always been managed by the coast-guard service, should be left to the Board of Trade.

Since then so successful have been the exertions of the NATIONAL LIFE-BOAT INSTITUTION, that it has placed on the coast upwards of 100 «ew life-boats, with transporting carriages, and substantial houses for their due safety and preservation, at an average cost of not Jess than 4QQZ. for each establishment; and it now possesses np fewer than H3 life-:t Qats, all is, a compete state of eflS efley, There are now i«v all 173 life-boats aro.un.d the coasts of the United Kingdpm, and probably tha,t number wjll not require be very greatly added to,.

With regard to the supply pf mprtar and rocket apparatus, fqr effecting communication with wrecked vessels from the shore, as before stated, that work is now altogether undertaken by the Board of Trade, and is perform %pjigh, the instrtupup lity p/ the coast-guard force, which,, being entire composed of sailors, of the. rp.ya] navy, all Qf whorg have been, instructed, ja the use pf fire-arms, of every description, are the fittest persons tp c(p the work. This apparatus, has been in successful use through the greater part of the present century, and wa formerly supplied by the Board pf CustQm6,j but on the "Merchant Shipping Act" o| 1854 becoming the law, which Act ajithorized the Board pf Trade to aid in the work of rescuing shipwrecked perspris, the, whole of tibe existing apparatus was transferred to that Board, which has since m,ade it much more ajmplete. in- equipment, hag added greatly to the number of station has established a system pf peripdic exercise in its use, and alto§e,thgr grea$y increpgd, its efficiency.

As regards, th.en,, the ftrst head of ojusubject.

viz.,-T—the. provision pf means fqr aiding shipwrecked persons from the land, and for' preventing shipwreck,—it way be.

considered that, with ttie exceptipn of the.

further improvement of sqrne, exjgtigg tyy;- bours and the formaljpn of new qnes; &l being done, that can be dop. JB trflthj $* nation maj justly b proud pf wha,t Jh s been done? for no such complete system fpr the rescue pf the helpless castaway exists, oj: ever has existed in any other cpuntry.

There remains tp be. considered, the second head viz. —the means to be, provided on board ajl vessels to add to the safety of their own crews.

Unfortunately no such simple mpde of meeting the demand with the, supply cap, be devised as jn the provisipa pf means from the shore j for whereas in the latter case, there are. but twq sources «f supply, yi? the Qavernment, and the.

buttons P/ the public, chiefly & through the I TIONA: TIQS; there are, pn th,g contrajy, in the.

former case, 33 many suppliers as ships, for each vessel }s. as much its. owner's castle as is his house, in the usual aepeptance of the term.; and he is. at full liberty to equip it in every way as he may think fit, except in the case o/ certain passenger-shipg, Yfijere the law of the poetry i TQ a, mbm extent, except in the of vessels which are insurtfd to their full value, pr to rnqre than their value, an owne* has a pecuniary interest in making his.

vessel safe to those on board her; since the same precautions which will tend to the safety of his property will tend to the safety of those who are intrusted with its transport.

We will suppose, therefore, that as a general rule o#r mercha.pt-vesseb are aftd safely built, wejl rigge4 a«d fo pd with all useful or, §t least, all necessary gear; especiallj with strong an4 tested anchors and cables, and that they are also well wanned and weH commanded. All these things a. shipQ ne¥ i$ int rfiti tfid v& prpviding, sq far as he is uncovered by ii»- anrajBqe, a»4 in thereby adding *Q the fiftfety of the seamen in his employ. * But preventive measures alone are, not sufficient, fof eren if all vessels were, well found and well commanded, numfireug wrecks, and, co isjpns would stip occur* on our coa t, aji in the crowded foes around, it. Remedial such a£ will teqd to the safety of crews after tbeir vessels are wrecked. 4jp$t ere fp$ , Qecessary, svff these at o & 00919* under another category; iftasmueh %p that the sh T wnejr cannot e y h peci Uu? interest in opting them, but, on the contrary, must incur an additional expense; their provision then, ijnlefis. required by. the law, can only proceed from his humanity, eg pf duty. We will proceed- to D eans may t»e a vantageousjly i on, board merchant-vessels for the safety of their crews, in the event of wreck or other accident, and will afterwards discuss the question as to whether the provision of the same may be safely left to the spontaneous sympathy of the shipowner, by whom alone tiey can be provided ; or whether the law, which often interferes to secure the safety of land-transport, as in the case of railways, ;• should interpose in behalf of our merchantseamen, and require the owners of all vessels to provide them with such means of safety as shall be decided to be necessary.

In addition to the preventive measures above referred to, there are three modes by which the safety of vessels' crews may be provided for after accident has occurred:— 1. By the supply of a life-boat of sufficient size to receive on board the whole crew. ; • 2. By providing some simple floating apparatus for conveying a line to the shore, and thus effect a communication with it.

3. By the provision of an efficient lifebelt for eacb of the crew. • , I. Life-boats.—As many merchant-seamen are drowned every year by the swamping or upsetting of their boats, when attempting to land through a surfj after being compelled to desert their craft, it follows that the providing'every vessel with a safer description of boat, which should be insubmergible, and more difficult to upset than an ordinary boat, would, in many cases, be the means dF saving their crews. We do not mean to say that they would invariably be soj or that, if in the neighbourhood of a shore life-boat, it would not be more prudehVfor a vessel's crew, in a gale of wind and heavy surf, to wait and allow her to take them ashore ; but there are many cases of collision, and of vessels springing- leaks when;their crews have to leave them and to land on an open coast where no shore lifeboats are at hand, and in which cases their lives might depend on their being in a boat which would not sink from under them if filled by a surf.

II. Floating apparatus.—A light buoy or cask with a long, small Manilla line, say 200 fathoms, attached to it, if kept always Beady on deck, might, in the event of a vessel's stranding; often be the means of effecting a communication [with the shore on which the safety of a crew might depend.

Bockets and mortars have been proposed to be placed on board merchant-vessels for the same purpose, and also kites for flying to the shore with a small line attached. We doubt, however, if either of these appliances would be sufficiently taken care of, or in readiness for use, or be so efficiently worked by the crews of ordinary coastingy essels as to make it likely that they would often prove serviceable.

HI. Life-belts.1—Lastly, by providing a good life-belt for the master and each of the crew, their lives would be much less seriously endangered in cases of wreck, or collision, or landing in their boats through a surf, than they now are : indeed so much value do we attach to this means alone that we fully believe if every merchant-vessel were so provided, not half the loss of life which now takes place on our coasts would then occur, even if the two previous provisions were neglected.

We will give our reasons for thus concluding :— In the majority of cases of accident from collision, or landing in boats, and even of vessels stranding, all that is required is, that men who cannot swim, and in heavy surfs those who can swim, should be supported on the surface for a short time, until help can be brought to them—in cases of collision, until a boat can be lowered, or in cases of stranding, or of upsetting of boats in a surf, until lines can be thrown from the shore or the life-boat put off to the rescue. As a person with a good belt on, even if drowned, cannot sink, it follows that, unless in the coldest weather when death might ensue from cold, he might be kept alive for a considerable length of time, and thus have many more chances of being rescued than if drawn down with the sinking vessel, or overwhelmed by a surf within a short distance of the shore.

As proof that our opinion on this point is not theoretical only, we could name many instances where a good life-belt has been the means of saving whole crews of life-boats which have been upset when engaged on their perilous service. We will quote two striking cases:— On the 27th of February, 1858, the Southwold life-boat, when out for practice, was upset by " broaching-to," within short distance of the*shore. The whole of her crew, 15 in number, having on efficient life-belts, were saved, although some of them were floating about for twenty minutes in a broken sea before they were picked up by a boat from the shore. Three gentlemen, amateurs, who had gone off in the boat and had declined to put on life-belts, were drowned. Again, on the 27th February, 1861, the Whitby life-boat was upset when going efi to a wreck: of the 12 men who formed her crew, one man was furnished with an efficient life-belt, of the same kind as those worn by the crew of the Southwold boat, on the occasion above narrated, and similar to those worn by the crews of the NATIONAL LIFE-BOAT INSTITUTION; the remainder had on belts of a very inferior character. In this case the only man saved was the. one who had on the good belt, the remaining 11 were drowned, although the accident occurred within fifty yards of the shore.

, The conclusion we cannot but arrive at, from these and other similar cases, is, that as the majority of persons are thrown into the water from the stranding of ships, and the upsetting of boats in surfs, under nearly similar circumstances to these lifeboats' crews, there is every reason to believe that, if provided with similar life-belts, the lives of the majority of them would be saved.

Indeed, of the three modes above described, of providing on board ships for the safety of wrecked persons, we do not hesitate to give precedence to the. life-belt as that which would probably be instrumental in saving the greatest number of lives.

But it has been said, that if sailors wish for the protection of life-belts, they should provide them for themselves. We contend, however, that they cannot do so. • In the first place, from then- generally improvident character, in most cases they would not do so; they would also be liable to procure belts of an inferior description, which would be of no real service; they would not have room, in the small berths allotted to them, to stow them away; and when discharged from one vessel, theywould «ot be* likely to take care f *Jiem until shipped again in another.

To be really serviceable, therefore, it would be indispensable that they shoujd form a part of every ship's furniture, and be all kept under lock and key in a chest stowed before the foremast, or other convenient place on the upper deck.

And, after all, their supply would entail no serious expense on a shipowner, for such belts could be provided for 10s. or 10s. 6d.

each, and they would last for twenty years without repair; so that their first cost would be almost nothing spread over that long period. Indeed, if a shipowner were to appeal to his crew to pay a shilling annually towards the cost of life-belts for their protection, we believe that it would be nearly always cheerfully given, which would in a few years pay for the belts and the chest to preserve them.

In conclusion, we come to the question: " Whether the provision of means for the safety of ships' crews may be safely left to the shipowner, or whether the same should be defined and required by law ?" ' We are of opinion that where the lives of large numbers of individuals are at stake, whether ashore or afloat, all proper precautionary measures for their protection should be guaranteed by public authority, unless the pecuniary interest of the employer lies in the same direction. But in the case in point it is known that shipowners - object to incurring additional expense. They urgi? that the now unprotected shipping interest is scarcely able as it is to compete with foreign shipping, and that as foreign vessels are not required to incur the expense of providing life-boats and life-belts for their crews, they would, with these additional expenses, be placed at a still further disadvantage.

We should admit the "force of this reason-; ing in any matter where life was not at stake.

And even as it is, we admit that no expense not indispensably necessary should be required —thai ships should not be required to carry life-boats of a very expensive character —and that in the matter of life-belts, the crews of vessels might be called on to contribute a small annual sum towards their supply. But, we contend, that the/annual loss, of seven or eight hundred lives by drowning, chiefly of seamen, is too serious an evil—nay, serious public calamity—to be allowed to continue..