November 24, 1904] 



NA TURE 



93 



matter of fact, no warp is carried into the river from the 

 sea, but that the warp in suspension is deri%ed entirely from 

 the solid matter brought down by the various tributaries 

 of the river. The paper describes this matter as oscillating 

 backwards and forwards with the tides in a zone confined 

 to the lower reaches of the Ouse and the Trent, except that 

 when heavy freshets are running it extends into the Humber 

 and is then partly carried out to sea. This peculiar action 

 is made use of to improve the value of the land adjacent to 

 the rivers by the process of " warping." Any solid matter i 

 brought into the Humber on the flood tide consists entirely j 

 of clean sand, and has no relation to the waste of the Holder- 

 ness coast. 



The only novel features, therefore, in these papers is the 

 suggestion of Mr. Carey that the matter should be taken 

 up by Parliament, and that a body of commissioners should 

 be created with the special function of dealing with the 

 foreshores of England and Wales. He proposes that the 

 coast should be divided into districts placed under com- 

 missioners, each having an engineer to act as coast warden, 

 with power to deal with the material on the beach, and the 

 general control and management of ail foreshore lands, the 

 costs incurred by this commission to be divided between 

 the Treasury, the local authorities, and the landowners. 



.Mr. Matthews confines his ideas of Government inter- 

 ference to the coast of Yorkshire, and suggests that this 

 ought to be protected against the inroads of the sea by the 

 Government, quoting as a precedent for this that the Board 

 of Trade protects the Spurn Peninsula. He loses sight, 

 however, of the fact that this is done for the protection of 

 the lighthouses which stand on the peninsula, and for the 

 preservation of the entrance to the Humber. Sir. Matthews 

 gives an estimate for protecting this reach of coast by sea 

 walls and groynes, and shows, as has been done by others 

 on previous occasions, that the value of the land swallowed 

 up by the sea within a reasonable period would not amount 

 to one-third of the first cost of the protective works, apart 

 from their maintenance. 



It will be remembered that recently, owing to the great de- 

 struction of sea protective works that occurred at Lowestoft 

 and Southwold, the representatives of the sea coast towns 

 on the east of England held a conference at Norwich and 

 appointed delegates to interview the Prime Minister 

 and the officials of the Government departments more par- 

 ticularly concerned in this matter, urging that the pre- 

 servation of the coast and the sea defence works ought to 

 be a national charge. So far, however, they do not appear 

 to have justified their claims for such aid. It has been 

 pointed out that most of these towns have gradually 

 emerged from mere fishing villages into sea-side resorts, and 

 have erected promenades and other similar works for the 

 purpose of making their places popular, and have by this 

 means increased the value of the land in the neighbourhood 

 from a mere agricultural price to that of building land, very 

 greatly fo the profit of the owners of such land. It appears 

 therefore manifestly unfair to ask the owners of the agri- 

 cultural land at the back, whose rents have already been 

 greatly depleted by the fall in value of agricultural produce 

 during the last few years, to contribute towards works for 

 the improvement of their neighbours' land on the coast, 

 which they would have to do if these works were made a 

 charge on the national revenue, and it would be equally 

 unjust to levy contributions on inland towns which have 

 borne the costs of large improvements for sanitary and 

 health purposes out of their own rates. 



Mr. Carey describes in his paper the evolution of a 

 sea-side village, subject to intermittent inundation, into a 

 watering place, in front of which the local authority charged 

 with the works not only encloses within the sea wall nearly 

 the whole of the shingle beach which afforded a natural 

 protection to the shore, but also by groynes traps the whole 

 of the travelling shingle, with disastrous results to the 

 owner of the land to leeward. It may also be pointed out, 

 as stated in the British Association report for 1895, that 

 many of the disasters that occur to the sea walls and 

 promenades of these sea-side towns are due to defective 

 engineering and a complete disregard of the laws of 

 nature. 



It is obvious that it would be very desirable to set up 

 some better control over the works now carried on along 



NO. 1830, VOL. 71] 



the sea shore either by increasing the powers of thj Board 

 of Trade or by the appointment of a specfal "commission, as 

 sug-gested by the author of the paper. The great difficulty 

 will be in dealing with the rights of the persons claiming the 

 ownership of the beach material, which in many cases is 

 sold and removed in very large quantities for concrete 

 making, road repairs, or other purposes. The Board of 

 Trade occasionally, on being applied to, intervenes and 

 issues notices prohibiting the removal of sand and shingle, 

 but its power to do so is not so well defined as it ought to 

 be, and the whole subject requires investigation, and legis- 

 lative action for regulating and controlling works carried 

 out on the sea shore and the removal of beach material ; 

 but the preservation of the property of landowners and urban 

 authorities out of funds provided from the national exchequer 

 would be entirely contrary to the methods of administration 

 hitherto pursued in this country. 



THE XOVEMBER METEORS OF 1904. 



T^HOUGH there was no prospect of a brilliant display 

 this year, there seemed the probability of a pretty con- 

 spicuous shower. In 1S38 — five years after the great 

 meteor-storm of 1833 — Mr. Woods, of London, reported in 

 the Times that on the night of November 12, between 

 i5h. 25m. and i^h. 55m., " nothing could exceed the 

 grandeur of the heavens. Meteors fell like a shower of 

 bombshells in a bombardment and in such rapid succession 

 as to defy every attempt to watch their particular directions 

 or to ascertain their numbers." Mr. Woods estimated 

 that he saw 400 or 500 meteors during the half-hour 

 mentioned. 



In 1872 also, about five years after the brilliant displays 

 in 1866, 1867, and 1868, the Leonids returned pretty 

 abundantly, for on November 13, I2h. to i8h., several 

 observers at Matera, Italy, counted 638 meteors, and the 

 display was regarded as having been much brighter than 

 usual. 



In these circumstances it was expected that the return 

 of 1904 would be deserving of careful observation, and so 

 it has proved, though the shower was perhaps not quite so 

 rich as expected. The earth, however, probably passed 

 through the denser part of the stream at about Greenwich 

 noon on November 15, and thus it must have escaped observ- 

 ation in England. Reports from American stations are 

 awaited with interest. In this country fogs were very pre- 

 valent at the important time, and at some places appear to 

 have obliterated the phenomenon. 



At Bristol during the night of November 13 there were 

 very few meteors visible, with only occasional Leonids, but 

 the stars were dim in the fog. 



On November 14 the conditions were more favourable. 

 Between I3h. 30m. and I5h. 45m. about 55 meteors were 

 seen (including 33 Leonids) by the writer during a watch 

 extending over i^h. of the period named. It was considered 

 that Leonids were appearing at the horary rate of 25 for 

 one observer. After i6h. increasing fog interfered with 

 observation. The Rev. S. J. Johnson at Bridport had, how- 

 ever, a very clear sky after i6h., and noted a fairly numerous 

 display of Leonids, including one as brilliant as Venus and 

 several equal to Jupiter. He does not mention the exact 

 number seen. 



Mr. C. L. Brook at Meltham, near Huddersfield, watched 

 on November 14 between i6h. and i8h., and counted 69 

 Leonids, of which number 17 were observed in the first 

 quarter of an hour. Other results have come to hand which 

 corroborate Mr. Brook's figures, and show that the 

 ma.ximum was attained between i^h. 50m. and i6h. 20m., 

 when the rate of apparition was i Leonid per minute in the 

 sphere of vision commanded by one observer. 



There appear to have been very few Leonids seen either 

 on the nights of November 13 or 15. 



As observed at Bristol, the radiant seemed to be an area 

 4 or 5 degrees in diameter, with its centre slightly west 

 of 7 and % Leonis, or at I5I°-^23°. There were several 

 minor show-ers visible, and two of these were well pro- 

 nounced at 43°-l-2i° and 144° + 37°. 



W. F. Denning. 



