A CONTROVERSY has apparently arisen of late between the Life-boat Institution and Lloyd's on the subject of Property Salvage Services performed by Life-boat Crews, and it would seem, judging from para- graphs which have appeared in the public press, that Lloyd's accuse the life-boat crews of making extortionate demands for their property salvage services. To meet this alleged state of affairs Lloyd's have pressed the Life-boat Institution to adopt Lloyd's Form of Salvage Agreement, which they appear to consider to be the best possible remedy for every evil con- nected with such matters, and to insist on the Life-boat crews using it. The Life- boat Institution, on the other hand, refuses to accept as proved the impeachment of its crews, and states clearly that it is a case of non possumus as regards compelling them to use the proposed form. As the subject is an interesting one to seamen, it is desirable that the question should be placed somewhat folly before the readers of the Nautical Magazine, stating the case fairly on both sides and leaving it to the public to pass judgment on the merits of the case.

It is stated by Lloyd's that the Life- boat crews are the servants of the Life- boat Institution, and therefore that as such they should not be allowed to make demands which the underwriters think to be exorbitant and unfair, even supposing they are allowed to render property sal- vage services at all. It is not apparent, however, whether it is the wish of Lloyd's that the Life-boat crews should be de- barred altogether from rendering such services. It can hardly be believed that this can be the case, but if so, it will be safe to say that neither the shipowners, the underwriters, the marine insurance companies, nor the general public will support the Corporation in such a view.

Supposing then that this is not the case, but that it is merely the wish of Lloyd's to protect the interests of their clients, the shipowners and underwriters, against extortion and improper claims, which they believe can satisfactorily be done by means of their form of salvage * From the Nautical Magazine for September, 1896.

agreement; the question, as to whether this agreement should or should not be used by the Life-boat crews is the begin- ning and end of the whole discussion, and narrows the contention down to very small limits indeed.

Before looking at the matter from the Life-boat Institution's point of view it will be well to examine the provisions of Lloyd's Form of Salvage Agreement, and it will be found that the pith of the various paragraphs in it is practically as follows;—That if the sum demanded by tile salvor for his services is not approved by the representative of the shipowner, the amount to be paid shall be fixed by Lloyd's, or by an arbitrator appointed by them, Lloyd's charging what fee they think fit for their arbitration. That any difference arising out of the agreement or the operations thereunder shall be re- ferred to the same arbitration. That any dispute between any of the parties in- terested in the property salved shall be settled by Lloyd's, their decision being final, and so on. This agreement is certainly a satisfactory one from the underwriters' point of view, as it gives the entire power of passing judgment to Lloyd's on their behalf, they being one of the parties to the suit, and entirely "clips the wings" of the salvor who does the work, but is to have "no say " in the matter of his remuneration for it.

It is not very clear where the right of Lloyd's comes in to dictate to the Life- boat Institution as to what they should or should not do in property salvage or any other matters. It has always been under- stood that both Lloyd's and the Life-boat Institution were private and voluntary corporations, both with excellent ends in view and both doing excellent work; but it is not so apparent that either has aoy right to direct the other, and the wisdom or the policy of such an attempt being made, as seems to be the case by Lloyd's in the present instance, is extremely doubtful. It is difficult to understand why Lloyd's, after so many years, should only now have awakened to the im- propriety on the part of the Life-boat Institution in not insisting on their crews ! using Lloyd's Form of Salvage Agreement.The property salvage regulations of the Life-boat Institution have been in force and circulated broadcast for more than a generation, and were no doubt originally drawn up with the full approval of Lloyd's. Even were it not so Lloyd's must certainly have had ample opportunity for objecting to them at the time, seeing that the then Chairman of the Life-boat Institution was an influential and ruling member of the Committee of Lloyd's, the active and much respected Chairman of Lloyd's Eegister and a great power in commercial circles. It may well be asked why this sudden fault-finding in this particular matter with the Life-boat Institution? Is it that the Committee of Lloyd's have passed the zenith of their power, and that feeling this, they wish to assert themselves and show their im- portance; or is it that the Government has been treading somewhat on their toes of late, and are possibly likely in the near future to do so still more, thus causing them to consider that it is in- cumbent on them to put forth at least a semblance of power ? The case for the Life-boat Institution would seem to be this. It is a voluntary Association incorporated under Royal Charter for the purposes of saving life, not property. It appeals to the fishing population, pilots, and sailormen gener- ally, to help the great work of life-saving by manning, when necessary, the Life- boats which the British public have enabled it to place around the coast of the United Kingdom. These men, as volunteers, have hitherto nobly responded to the call, and many thousands of lives have as a result been saved from ship- wreck, a result of which the many friends of the Institution are proud. As the Life-boat Institution began in the course of years to enlarge its borders and to in- crease its life-saving fleet, the question arose as to what should be done, having regard to the Salvage Laws, in the event of Life-boat crews, when called out by distress signals for service, finding that they were not required to give help in life-saving but only to assist in the salving of a cargo or ship; and it was resolved that, inasmuch as the crews were volunteers and perfectly independent of the Institution, outside the duties they voluntarily took upon them of life-saving, the Institution had no power whatever to give any orders in the matter. At the same time it was felt that it was not the wish of the public and the subscribers, that the Institution should refuse the men the use of the Life-boats to save valuable property. The question, looking at it all round, was, and is, no doubt, a difficult one to legislate upon.

The following regulations show pre- cisely the position of the Institution with respect to property salvage services, and that an honest attempt has been made to do the best under difficult circum- stances :— " 1st.—The Life-boat is never to be launched for any purpose other than for saying life without the direct sanction of the honorary secretary, or of some other authority connected with the local .committee, and on no account to be used for other purposes, to the injury of private interests.

" 2nd.—When a Life-boat has been launched for the purpose of saving life, and it is found on arriving at the vessel in danger that the master, or other responsible person in charge, wishes to engage the services of the Life-boat's crew to endeavour to save the vessel, the Life-boat's crew are at liberty to accept an engagement with such master, or other responsible person in charge, for this purpose, and to make use of the Life-boat under the following conditions:— "A. That .all reasonable care be taken of the Life-boat and its gear.

" B. That it be clearly understood that the position of the Life-boaf s crew towards the Institution is changed from a Life-boat crew endeavouring to save life, and entitled to be paid for such endeavours by the Institu- tion, to a party of salvors who have borrowed the Life-boat for property salvage purposes, for the remuneration of which services they are to look to the person in charge of the vessel who has engaged them.

Should the boat be damaged while render- ing such services the cost of repair to be met by the salvors.* " 0. Should the attempts of the Life-boat's crew to salve the vessel be successful, but the amount of salvage money paid them be less than the amount they would have been eatitled to for an eadeavowr to save life, the diiference will be made good by the Institution., Should, however, they be unsuccessful !in salving the vessel, they will be paid by the Institution as though they had launched for the purpose of saving life.

" 3rd.—If the Life-boat be launched for the purpose of saving life, and it be found on reaching the vessel that there is any immediate probability of efforts to float her, or to place her * Formerly the Institution demanded a small share of the salvage money as compensation for damage done to the Life-boat or gear.out of danger, meeting with success, and the Life-boat's crew be not required to salve property, but merely to remain at hand in case it should be found necessary to desert the vessel, it shall be permissible for the boat to remain if the coxswain deem it practicable, but this service will be regarded as a life-saving service to be paid for by the Institution, and not a property salvage service to be remunerated by the vessel.

"It must be clearly understood, however, that this regulation relates to immediate efforts only, which may be considered to extend to one hour after the high water immediately following the launching of the Life-boat. Any claim for extra payment from the Institution for this special service must be accompanied by a letter or certificate from the master, or other respon- sible person in charge of the vessel, setting forth that the service was rendered at his request and the time it occupied.

" The attendance of the Life-boat and its crew during any lengthened operations at the request of the master or other responsible person in charge of the vessel, whether assist- ance is given in such operations or not, will be considered a property salvage service, and will not be paid for by the Institution.

"4th.—The Life-boats' crews are strictly prohibited from making any claim on a vessel for life salvage, as such services are paid for by the Institution." From these Kegulations it will be seen that the Institution profits in no way at all, either pecuniarily or otherwise, by lending the Life-boats, whilst the men are left to render the property salvage services they are called upon and asked to perform and to make such terms as may be thought fit by them with the representatives of the shipowner, the law of the land providing, through the Admiralty Court, the means of settling disputes. With reference, therefore, to the alleged exorbitant demands of Life- boat men, it rests with the parties assisted to refuse such demands, and it is surely their duty to do so and to have the matter adjudicated upon in Court.

It must be borne in mind that life-saving is not the calling of the crews. They live by fishing, piloting, salving property, etc. These constitute for the most part their callings. They cannot, therefore, afford to take less than the market value for their time and services when life is not at stake merely to enable the under- writers to evade their responsibilities and the risks they are naturally ready enough to incur. Even were it possible for the Life-boat Institution, in view of the legal aspect of the position, to pay the crews to render property salvage services on the same basis and at the same rate as for life-saving purposes, it is hardly possible that the subscribers to the Institution would concur in such a policy, as it would undoubtedly mean, to put it plainly, the spending of money given for charity, in subsidising the underwriters by securing a good profit for them, or at all events so arranging matters that in the end they have to pay very much less than is really justly due from them for the work done, than they would have to pay in other circumstances.

Again, assuming for the sake of argu- ment that the Institution could in any way dictate to the crews as to what price they should or should not receive for their services in property salving, or could order them to make no charge at all, but to look to the Institution for remunera- tion as they do for life-saving services, it would undoubtedly be extremely unfair to the men. It would come to this, that because the men have launched to save life, but their help is not needed for this purpose, but instead they are wanted to save a ship or cargo, and because they happen to be in the Life-boat, that there- fore they are to be placed in a much worse position than if they were acting independently in their own yawls or luggers. It would be curious to know what would be the effect of such a handi- capping order to the crews. It is to be feared that it would tend to great loss of life both amongst the men themselves and the shipwrecked crews. The men would naturally be led to incur terrible risks in their own boats, altogether unsuitable in a great crisis, in order to attempt to save both life and property. Eeverting to the question of the use of Lloyd's Form of Salvage Agreement, the Life-boat Insti- tution appears to think that they would not be justified in even suggesting to their crews the use of such a one-sided agree- ment. In this decision the Institution would seem to be backed up by the example of the Board of Trade, which also refuses to call on its life-boat crews to use the form in question. It would seem that cases have been cited by Lloyd's, the details of which have, however, been disputed by the Life-boat Institution in which the Life-boat crews are stated to have made too large demands for the work done; but if this is the case, and they have offended in this way, why did not the shipowners for their own sakes, and on a question of principle, take the claims into Court ? As, however, they paid the demands of the crews and did not dispute them, disinterested persons may be ex- cused if they assume that after all they were fairly satisfied with the settlements arrived at without invoking the aid of the Court.

The British public has been somewhat shocked at the bad character which has been given to the Life-boat crews, but the friends of the Institution are not without hope that it has been exaggerated or misrepresented. Is it not quite possible for an unprincipled captain to mis- represent the conduct of a Life-boat crew to satisfy his employers and to make good his position with them ? Such a circum- stance can be easily imagined; whereas, on the other hand, it is hard to conceive • any inducement for the Life-boat men to make misrepresentations, for the simple reason that they are their own masters, and have no one to whom they must account. Unquestionably Life-boat crews may sometimes intentionally or uninten- tionally charge too much for their services, and underwriters likewise may wish to pay too little for them, but this is not a matter of public concern—the Admiralty Court is open to both parties, and there the case can be settled once and for all.

In conclusion, it may be suggested that if there is a fault anywhere, it is possibly in the condition of the Salvage Laws. Nothing human is perfect, and it might better serve the purpose of Lloyd's if they would turn their attention to these laws rather than to keep carping at the Life-boat crews who have certainly, as acknowledged on all hands, rendered for upwards of seventy years magnificent service to the country in life-saving, and who merit all the praise which can be heaped upon them under that head.

The Life-boat Institution would, no doubt, be only too ready to back up the Committee of Lloyd's in any step they might take having for its laudable aim the improvement of the Salvage Laws and the prevention of any friction or bad feeling which the present arrangements, unavoidable perhaps in the existing state of the law, would seem at times to superinduce. „ PROPERTY SALVAGE.".