The Sun.
London, England, 1858-09-22 00:00:00

RA.RBOURS OF REFUGE.

The commissioners appointed to take evidence on
the subject of harbours of refuge, met again in the
Sessions-house, Liverpool, on Monday, Rear-Admi-
ral Hope presiding as chief commissioner. The
other members of the commission
.present were
Major-General Sir F. Smith, Mr. Lindsay, M.P.,
and Captain Sullivan, R.N.
Mr. William Dansou handed up to the commis
sioners a report on the subject of breakwaters for
the protection of the commercial marine.
The Chief Commissioner said the report would
be considered in London, and if further information
were required, the commissioners would write him
on the subject.
Captain Arthur Hawkins, who was next exa-
mined, stated that his occupation had bee' that of
a master mariner for the last 1.7 years ; and he had
always served on board sailing vessels, and chiefly
in the North American and State trade. He
thought a harbour of refuge in the North Channel
would be of great advantage to the Liverpool trade,
as many ships would go that way in preference to
taking the South Channel, and also in return. He
would recommend this harbour of refuge to be
placed near Port Rush or the Skerries. He had
commanded vessels of about 1,000 tons, and for
vessels of that kind it was very necessary to have
a harbour of refuge in stress of weather. He had
made 15 or 20 voyages in the north channel, but he
never had to run into any of the harbours of refuge.
A harbour at the Skerries would be a good place of
call for orders to the Liverpool trade. Ile could not
speak as to a harbour of refuge at Land's End. The
harbour at Waterford would be an excellent
refuge,har-
bourof
To Sir Frederick Smith—More harbours of re-
fur were necessary for the safety of life • many
ships had been lost for the want of them. He had
if the harbour were deepened ; also
the harbour Carlingford.
found difficulty in navigating the Pentland Frith.
The harbour of Lough Foyle was not so easily
taken, especially at night time ; but, under the
same circumstances, a ship might make to the
Skerries, if a harbour of refuge was established
there. There was a. considerable traffic by the
north channel, and it would be much more used
if there were a harbour of refuge a* the Skerries.
To Mr. Lindsay—He would not run for the
Skerries in a north-east gale ; and , the most
dangerous winds there were from the north-east
He thought a shelter might be found there in a
north-east gale ; at least, though the wind were
blowing into the harbour, a master mariner
would rather run into the harbour than run against
the rocks. If the harbour were properly con-
structed, it would be safe anchorage in a north-
east-gale.
To Captain. Sullivan—With a south-west wind
no works could make the Skerries more safe than
at present. Such a wind would be off the land.
Mr. Graves, who was next examined, stated that
he was chairman of th&Shipowners'Association and
the Marine Board. He had been connected with
the shipping interest of Liverpool for 12 years. He
was acquainted with the subject of this inquiry.
He had read the report of the committee of the
House of Commons on the subject, and it was quite
impossible to read that report without coming to
the conclusion that the harbours of refuge would
greatly tend to the preservation of life, especially
on the east coast of England. He thought that they
would greatly tend also to the protection of pro-
perty. The greater security of property would
tend to lower the rate of insurance on vessels.
Theseharbours of refuge would operate as auxiliary
ports of, call; but he could not conceive that they
would be used as primary ports of call. It was not
so much for inward bound as for outward bound
vessels that these places would be useful. He could
not give an opinion as to the best site for a harbour
of refuge on the north-east coast of Scotland.
The Chief Commissioner—What is your opinion
as to a harbour of refuge on the north coast of
Ireland ?

Mr. Graves said he thought if a harbour of refuge
could be formed at the Skerries, at a moderate cost,
free of access at all times, that it would induce many
masters, epecially those engaged in the North
American trade, to take a northern passage, in the
spring of the year more especially, as the distance
would, be shortened by about 500 or 600 miles. But
he would suggest, in order to give the commissioners
the best information that could be had as respected
this subject, that the evidence taken before the com-
missioners should be placed before the Liverpool
Shipowners' Association and other commercial asso-
ciations, who would consider the subject, and would
be able to give a much better opinion than he could
on the matter. The subject had been very shortly
considered, for the notice given had been very
brief, and the question was a very large one. The
shipowners of Liverpool had no wish to recom-
mend any expenditure not ',absolutely warranted,
and therefore suggested that before the commis-
sioners caused their, report to issue, the mercantile
associations of Liverpool should be favoured with
the minutes of the evidence taken, and that with
those minutes, added to their own experiences of
the wants of the shipping of the port, they might
be of use to the honourable commissioners.

The Chief Commissioner, after consulting with
the other commissioners, said he would not fail to
bring the suggesiion under the, notice of the com-
missioners at their next full meeting.
Sir F. Smith thought the public journals would
give enough of the proceedings to enable the asso-
ciations in town to discuss the subject.
In answer to Sir F. Smith, Mr. Graves said it
was the habit of great shipowners in Liverpool to
insure their ships, and the construction of harbours
of refuge would have a tendency to• diminish the
premiums. Shipowners would object to the con-
struction of harbours of refuge for the safety of
life, if they were to be taxed further. In that re-
spect tl:q question was purely a national, and not a
commercial one. Harbours of refuge for the safety
of property was also a national matter, and ship-
owners would object to a further passing toll. The
great majority of Liverpool vessels were well
found, and therefore needed no harbours of refuge ;
but there were others ill found and disabled in the
Channel, and to them harbours of refuge would be
very useful. Most of the wrecks in the Channel
had arisen from ignorance of the currents, bad
look-outs, and neglect of the use of the lead.
To Mr. Lindsay—One of the greatest advantages
of harbours of refuge would be that they would
reduce the loss by collision. A great amount of
loss in the Channel arose from collisions. He
thought a more uniform system of buoying the
rivers and harbours would be of advantage, as
would also a uniformity of coast and harbour lights.
He was afraid the new system laid down by the
Admiralty would tend materially to increase the
loss of life and property, unless all nations would
agree to conform. Harbours of refuge were more
required for small craft than for large vessels. Fair-
way lights in the Channel would be most service-
able. The committee of the Shipowners' Associa-
tion were of opinion that harbours of refuge would
be desirable, speaking of their own locality ; but
not so desirable to them as to lead them to say that
rather than be without them, they would pay a
passing toll.
Mr. Lindsay—Then you do not think them so
desirable as that you would pay a passing toll for
them ?

Mr. Graves—We would steadfastly oppose the
levying of any passing toll whatever for a harbour
of refuge. We consider that already we are more
highly taxed than some of our neighbours with
whom we have to compete.
Mr. Lindsay—Then your opinion is that these
are national objects for the national good, and that
therefore they should be constructed and maintained
solely at the cost of the nation
Mr. Graves—Quite so. I don't sec that it admits
of any other point of view in the present day.
Mr. Langton, insurance .broker, of Liverpool, had
been connected with the port ten or eleven years.
He had had the question before the committee of
the UnderwritersT Association, incidentally, some
time ago. Generally they considered harbours of
refuge would be very advantageous as a protection
to their interests, and likewise for the protection of
life and property. Naturally what protected life
and property would be a protection to the interest
of the underwrit9r. It would be very difficult to
say what effect
harbours of refuge would have on
the premiums of insurance, which were already
very low. As to a harbour at Wick, in the north
of Scotland, they considered it would be very ad-
vantageous, and indeed necessary,
fall of the year, to have some safe place there for
vessels- from the Baltic. especially in the
To Sir F. Smith—Had heard Mr. Graves's evi-
dence, which he thought concurred with the gene-
ral impression in Liverpool. It was a fact that
some ships left port with their crews in an impro-
per state, and losses occurred in consequence. The
Tay lour was lost, it was said, in consequence of the
drunken crew, and all emigrant ships remained
now in the river at least a day as a preventive of
that sort of thing,
bear the expenses Would rather not discuss the
question whether the Consolidated Fund only should
of harbours of refuge. Did not
think that the establishment of harbours of refuge
would diminish the premiums of insurance.
To Mr. Lindsay—lndirectly the public would
get the benefit of the harbour of refuge, and there-
fore he was rather inclined to think that the
charges should be borne by the Consolidated Fund.
They did not charge a higher rate of insurance
when a ship went through the Pentland Frith to
the Baltic. Very little was done to the Baltic from
Liverpool now. At one time there was a very
great trade done, but now, with the exception of
bulky goads, the trade passed by rail over to Hull
and the East Coast, and thence by steamer. There
was in that way a great saving in time and expense

of the transit of goods. He wished to observe that
the Underwriters of Liverpool were of opinion that
another light should be put up in Cardigan Bay,
between the Bishops and Bardsey, where there was
a distance of 60 miles unprotected, and at present
no guide to Studwell Roads, which in themselves
were an excellent harbour of refuge.
Mr. A. Corkhill, shipowner and ship agent,
Liverpool, said his vessels traded to the north and
north-east coast of Scotland. He believed that a
harbour of refuge at Wick was indispensably
necessary, owing to the great local trade during
the fishinc, season, and also to the considerable
passing trade from and to the Baltic. He had
conversed with masters of vessels on the subject,
and he had learned from them that a harbour at
Wick was necessary.
To Sir F. Smith—Even if it should be con-
sidered that Wick was not a desirable site for a
harbour for the passing trade, yet, as a harbour for
the fishing trade, he thought it exceedingly de-
sirable that the nation should construct a harbour
there. Many vessels dare not leave Wick, because
in case of a storm, there would be a crush of vessels
and a loss of life. If these vessels went out to
sea, there would be an increase in the catch of
fish, which was a national matter, because the
poor would have a larger supply of food ; and
a hardy race of seamen would also be raised up,
from which the royal navy would be recruited.
To Mr. Lindsay—He thought a harbour at
Peterhead was necessary ; and that at the Skerries
one would be desirable. He did not see the
necessity of a harbour at the Isle of Man.
Mr. James Mondel, one of the members of the
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and a shipowner,
said he had been connected with the port of Liver-
pool 32 years. He thought harbours of refuge
were desirable at points were experience had shown
that there were great losses. He was decidedly
opposed to passing tolls for harbours of refuge, be-
cause they would be established principally for the
saving of life; and it being a national object, the
shipowner should not be called on to pay for its
execution. He thought it an anomaly that Liver-
pool shipowners—Liverpool being a neighbourhood
where the losses were few—should be called on to
contribute to a harbour of refuge on the east coast,
where the losses were many.
To Mr. Lindsay—He did not think that if a
charge were made for entering a harbour of refuge,
it would defeat the object that the commissioners
had in view—the saving of life and property. He
thought that a harbour of refuge about Douglas
Bay would facilitate very much the commerce of
Liverpool. He would point out the north of Liver-
pool up to the Pentland Frith, where there was no
harbour of refuge for a ship that missed the Mersey.
He thought a harbour at Douglas would be of more
advantage to Liverpool than one at Portrush. His
belief was, that it would be a great advantage to
the country generally if the harbours of Carling-
ford and Waterford were improved and deepened.
To the Chief Commissioner—There was an ex-
cellent observatory at Liverpool, and the Commis-
sioners could, if they liked, be furnished with a
tabulated statement of the direction and force of the
winds.

Captain William Clarke bad been at sea 45 years,
and had been upwards of 30 years a master. Had
frequently anchored in, and passed through, the
Skerries, during very bad weather. If a break-
water were prepared at the Skerries, he could shut
up the Broad Sound, so that there would be two
entrances, and it would be perfectly safe even in a
north-west wind.

To Captain Sullivan—ln north-east gales, the
Skerries were as safe now as they would be if the
proposed breakwater were constructed.
To the Chief Commissioner—He considered a har-
bour at Wexford would be very desirable.
This was_the whole of the evidence, and the sit-
ting closed.