IF any excuse were necessary for again reverting to this subject in these pages, it is assuredly to be found in its importance to all concerned, viz., the owners of ships and cargoes; the various marine insurance and salvage associations; the mm who work the Life-boats, and last, but not least, the ROYAL NATIONAL LIFE-BOAT INSTITUTION in its most comprehensive sense.

To understand this subject must be to the advantage of the first-named body, excepting to such who divest themselves of all, or nearly all, material interest in their property by insuring it up to (and in some cases we fear beyond) its full value, thus rendering it a matter of com- parative indifference to tiein whether it is destroyed or not.

To the second-named body, who by their undertakings place themselves in part, or wholly, in the position of owners of the property, it cannot tat be of value to know what aid they have to expect, or on what terms they can respect it, from those who, it is no exaggeration to say, are most likely to be at hand to render it when required, together with the equip- ment best calculated for performing some of the most important parts of the work.

It is certainly desirable that the third party should clearly understand its posi- tion, both as regards the property and its owners, as well as the Life-boat Institution ; for anything but the clearest standing and the most perfect confidence between it and the Institution, cannot but fail to iajnxe the general efficiency of the Life-boat service.

Fourthly, " the Institution in its most comprehensive sense." It cannot be denied f that simple justice to the governing "body of the Institution, to whom the direction of its affairs is entrusted (by generous and sympathetic supporters amongst the j charitable portion of the public), demands that the position taken up by them, and which forms the foundation upon which its rules and regulations are framed, should be clearly understood, and that they should receive in that, as in all other matters, nearly confidence and support We believe this to be a subject on which; there is more apparent, but unfounded, room for, ' and probability of attack, than any other comprised within the sphere of its opera- tions.

The ROYAL NATIONAL LIFE-BOAT INSTITUTION s a Society incorporated by Royal Charter for the purpose of " saving life from shipwreck," for which end alone it appeals to the public for pecuniary sup- port, to enable it to carry out design, by establishing and maintaining round the coast a chain of the engines best cal-culated for the work to be done, including remuneration and rewards to the men. who do it What reply is given to that appeal, and -what is the result of this support, is well known, and need not be dwelt upon here.

The above being undoubtedly the posi- tion and sole work of the Institution, it naturally follows that the "salvage of property from shipwreck" is in no way per se part of its business, and it would be true to its professions and Charter were it to decline in take to take any part in such an undertaking; certainly it would be a misappropriation of the funds to apply any portion of them to this purpose.

It is also necessary for a proper under- standing of the question that the relative positions of the Institution and its boats* crews should be clearly defined. It is misleading to describe the men, as we have seen, as " the paid servants of the Institution," for, with the exception of the coxswains, they receive no retaining fee whatever. Besides, the small quarterly payments to the coxswains may fairly be considered as remuneration for other ser- vices, viz., taking care of the boat and her stores, the boathouse, &e., as whenever they go afloat they are paid the same as the other men.

The crews may therefore be more fitly described as contractors, who, on each occasion of going out in the boat, tacitly agree with the Institution to perform or to use all reasonable efforts to perform a defined work, viz., to rescue the lives of men in danger of shipwreck for a certain sum, and their engagement with the Insti- tution distinctly ends on the termination of each service.

This being the position of the Institu- tion in the matter, and the only one it can reasonably be expected to assume, it is obvious that if it goes beyond this, and permits its boats to be used for the purpose of " salvage of property," it must be upon such terms as will reconcile, as far as practicable, the interests of all parties con- cerned. It has to consider:— 1st. The owners of property in danger, and to them it says: " It is no part of my duty to risk my property in endeavouring to save yours; but considering mine is on the spot, and of such a nature as to be adapted to helping yours, I will allow it to be used upon the same terms as you could obtain similar aid elsewhere." 2nd. To the men forming its boats' crews it says: " You are the men most likely to be employed in assisting to save this property—to do this is your calling; we will therefore lend you our boats for the purpose, on the following con- ditions, viz., that you will look to the owners of the property for reasonable re- muneration for your work, and not to us.

That you pay to us the proportion of the amount earned that is usually paid by local custom, for the hire or use of pro- perty for that end. That you do not launch our boats, or use them for this work to the injury of any private interest, i.e., other people who have boats, but not Life-boats." To its supporters it says: " The salvage of property is beyond the province for which you contribute to the maintenance of the Institution, but as a strict adher- ence to the ' saving of life only" means a prohibition to take part in saving pro- perty, and might frequently lead to the destruction of valuable property, and as the fact exists that the majority of our boats' crews are drawn (with great ad- vantage to our legitimate work) from the men whose calling it is to do salvage ser- vices, it is in the interest of all parties that they should be allowed to use the | Life-boats on reasonable terms, one of which is, that your property is secured against risk of loss by the usual payment for its use, which, in other words, con- stitutes an insurance on it." The Institution, whilst positively pro- hibiting its boats being launched for sal- vage purposes to the detriment of private interests, encourages the crews to make every effort, when afloat, to endeavour to save the ship, as well as the lives of the men, by undertaking, if they do so and fail, or if the salvage reward earned is less than they would have been entitled to for saving life, to make up the differ- ence.

The Life-boats, in addition to the direct  " property salvage services " they perform, often contribute indirectly to this end by remaining by ships whilst efforts are being made to rescue them from danger, the presence of the Life-boat naturally giving confidence to the vessels' crews, and in- ducing them to remain longer on board and to make greater efforts to save their ship than otherwise would be the ease. The | j very essence and nature of salvage services being that one party makes its living by the necessities and dangers of another, it is not easy to see how disputes are to be avoided, and their just settlement must always be a very difficult question, in which it is absolutely impossible to satisfy both sides.

There are also many side issues and collateral questions, which complicate matters and reader settlement more diffi-cult. One of these, that came to our knowledge not long ago, was the positive refusal of the master of a vessel in con- siderable danger, to accept the offer of a Life-boat's crew to take the vessel to a place of safety, and to leave the question of remuneration to be settled by arbitration.

He insisted on an agreement for a specific sum. It appears to us that the course ; suggested by the Life-boatmen would have been a reasonable and honest solution of the problem, far more likely to result in a fair settlement than the otherwise un- avoidable bargaining for a specific sum.

This, however, does not appear to be the [ opinion of some shipowners, for we have I since been informed that the latter course is more frequently adopted than might be j expected, It is impossible to withdraw the ques- tion of the remuneration to Life-boats for salvage of property from the general category of remuneration for similar ser-vices. And it is, in our opinion, unrea- sonable to expect men ia Life-boats to perform such services on terms more favourable to the shipowners than they can possibly make with other people, simply because they belong to the same class, and have only the same source to look to for remuneration.

The Institution relieves salvage pro- perty from what would otherwise fre- quently be a very heavy charge, viz., that for saving the lives of the crew. The law makes this the first charge for salvage on the ship and her cargo, or any part that may be saved; but the Institution dis- tinctly prohibits the Life-boat's crew from making any such claim, and informs them they must look to the Institution only for reward.