The first four pages of the Report give an historical sketch of the Institution, and describe its object, composition and management, after which it continues as follows:— COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE INSTITUTION.

During the last five or six years com- plaints and charges of a very damaging character have been made from certain quarters against the Institution in regard to its general and financial management.

Your Committee have examined on oath a large number of witnesses in support of these allegations, and on behalf of the Institution. They have also sent a series of questions dealing with the subject- matter of the charges to the honorary secretaries and coxswains of the ROYAL NATIONAL LIFE-BOAT INSTITUTION, to Lloyd's Agents, to the coastguard officers, and to receivers of wrecks at all stations round the coast of Great Britain and Ireland. Tour Committee have received 846 replies to these questions from persons to whom the facts must have been known and who could have no ground for concealing .or misrepresenting them. It is a source of pleasure to your Committee that these answers contain so wide a testimony to the general efficiency of management and usefulness of the ROYAL NATIONAL LIFE-BOAT INSTITUTION.

Some of the charges made were personal, absolutely unfounded, and have been withdrawn by their author. Your Com- mittee do not think them worthy of any further notice, nor have they thought it necessary to consider and correct mere exaggeration or intemperance of language in the making of charges in themselves sufficiently grave.

Charges of gross and wilful misrepre- sentation with respect to its finances having been made against the Institution, your Committee have felt it their duty to investigate this matter most carefully.

They find that prior to 1891 the managers of the Institution published in their report an income and expenditure account and a list of all legacies and subscriptions received during the year, but did not publish a balance-sheet, nor any statement of the amount of invested capital held by the Institution. The income derived from the investments was, however, fully shown in the income and expenditure account.

From 1891 onwards a balance-sheet with full details of the investments had been included in the annual report, in addition to the information previously given. Until the close of 1895 all legacies were carried direct to the balance-sheet and treated as capital; but in the accounts for the year 1896 the managers adopted the form of account suggested by the Charity Organi- sation Society for the hospitals receiving grants from the Hospital Saturday and Sunday Fund, and included the legacies in their income and expenditure account carrying forward any balance from that account from the balance-sheet for invest- ment.

Tour Committee do not feel themselves called on to express an opinion as to •which is the best form of account to adopt—accountants of equal eminence having given evidence in favour of each form. Your Committee are, however, satisfied that both the forms of account adopted since 1891 give full information as to the financial position of the Insti- tution, its income, expenditure, and in- vested funds, and that there is no ground for the charges of misrepresentation or concealment brought against its managers.

Though your Committee are of opinion that the accounts published previous to 1896 are perfectly intelligible to persons familiar with financial statements, they consider that the managers acted wisely in adopting in 1896 the form recom- mended by the Charity Organisation Society, as being more easily compre- hended by .the general public, who support the Institution by their contri- butions.

In particular—taking the more im- portant allegations which it was attempted before them to substantiate as against the Institution—it is stated in a magazine article that "the published accounts of the ROYAL NATIONAL LIFE-BOAT INSTI- TUTION systematically conceal instead of disclosing the fact of the Institution having an income of £38,000 from legacies, in addition to the £60,000 provided by public subscriptions and investments." Your Committee find that this statement is absolutely unfounded. The published accounts and Report of the ROYAL NATIONAL LIFE-BOAT INSTITUTION give details, show- ing in each year every penny received from whatever source. Full particulars of any legacies received are furnished in the accounts published yearly, and the investments of the Institution are also clearly set out.

It was further directly stated that the ROYAL NATIONAL LITE-BOAT INSTITUTION so discharged this part of their duties that their conduct in this particular amounts to "a policy of concealment." Ever since 1891 the Institution have published balance sheets; and every year, before and since that date, they have published accounts of income and ex- penditure, assets and liabilities, disclosing the exact financial condition of the Insti- tution. These accounts, already alluded to, are of such a character that, in the opinion of your Committee, no one of ordinary intelligence could fail to ascer- tain from them the precise position of the Institution as regards its income, expenditure, and sources of supply — provided always, the accounts were examined with a land fide intention of understanding them.

Your Committee consider, therefore," that to charge the Institution with adopt- ing " a policy of concealment" is wholly unjustified by the facts.

With regard to legacies left to the Institution, it was contended before your Committee that certain of these had been " mis-appropriated." This contention was completely dis- proved. In the opinion of your Com- mittee, the Institution has invariably done its best to carry out the intentions of testators who have entrusted it with legacies. In many cases, however,- tes- tators have hampered their bequests -with conditions which have made it impossible immediately to give effect to their wishes.

Many people are not content to leave a certain sum for the general work of life- saving done by the Institution, but insist on providing a Life-boat to be placed at some point selected by the testator in advance, and, perhaps, already sufficiently supplied.

The Institution would be greatly helped in its work, and seafaring men more fully provided for when in danger, were money left to the managers of the Institution to use in their discretion for the objects pre- scribed in their charter. Thus, while __ any recommendation to couple the bene- factor's name with the work to be done, or to provide for a particular place, would certainly receive all consideration, the general objects of the Institution would not be hindered by conditions precedent difficult of immediate fulfilment.

It seems desirable, however, to your Committee, that in the future, the Insti- tution should, in its report, show how and when each legacy to which a specific condition is attached has been employed; so as to give confidence to the public that their wishes are complied with.

Charges of extravagance in the admini- stration of their affairs have been made against the Institution. Your Committee have had full details placed before them of the salaries, and other expenses incurred-by the Institution. Bearing in mind the large amount of detailed work 'at the central office, the long distances travelled by the inspectors who visit every station four times each year, and the importance of securing trustworthy men for these posts, your Committee are of opinion that the staff is not excessive in numbers nor too highly paid.

It has also been stated that the remuneration of the men who man the Life-boats, and the provision made for men who are injured, and the dependents of men who lose their lives when on service, is inadequate. After obtaining evidence from all parts of the coast, your Com- mittee are satisfied that the remuneration is adequate in ordinary cases, and satis- factory to the men employed; and that when exceptional services have been rendered, the Institution is always will- ing to recognise them in a substantial manner.

With regard to the boats provided by the Institution, it was contended that they were unfitted for their work; and it was even alleged that, therefore, the officials of the Institution " ought to be prosecuted for manslaughter." This contention your Committee find to be wholly unfounded and preposterous.

It is true the service has not been con- ducted entirely without loss of life by those engaged in it. Your Committee would have .been greatly surprised if it bad; seeing that the work must often be done in conditions of the greatest danger to all concerned.

In the opinion of your Committee the boats generally are well adapted for the work they have to perform. Your Com- mittee do not feel that they can recommend one type of boat for adoption rather than another. Nor do they hold it can be decided as a matter of certainty that, in varying circumstances, either a self- righting or a non-self-righting boat is absolutely the best. Both types are most carefully designed, built, and furnished.

Persons fully competent to judge declare, some for one, some for the other, pattern.

The practice of the Institution is to consult the men on the spot—who will have to man the boat—and to allow them in great measure to decide for themselves in which kind of boat they will do this difficult, and inevitably dangerous, work.

Confidence of the crew in their boat is of itself an element of security, and your Committee do not advise any change in this system.

In regard to steam Life-boats—of which the Institution already have two, and are building another—it appears to your Committee that in certain situations they have undeniable advantages. But at many points on our coasts they could not be stationed; and at many adapted for them there are already steam-tugs to be obtained for the taking out of Life-boats to vessels in distress. The facts proved before your Committee show that the managers of the Institution are fully alive to the value and importance of steam Life-boats, and to the conditions of their effective employment; and that they are preparing to place such boats where necessary. Your Committee think, there- fore, that this matter may safely be left to the consideration and judgment of the Institution.

Charges of want of discipline among the crews, of delay or failure in launch- ing Life-boats, and of refusal on the part of crews to go out to the assistance of vessels in distress, have been freely made.

From the answers to their inquiries received from all parts of the coast, your Committee are satisfied that, so far as the great majority of Life-boat crews are con- cerned, these charges are entirely ground- less, and that the Life-boat crews are a body of men of whom the country may be proud. In the few instances of want of discipline among the crews, or refusal to go out, reported to your Committee, they find that the Institution had inquired into the matter at the time, and had taken steps to correct it; while the cases of delay or failure in launching Life-boats were very few,, and were in every case traced to error in judgment, to •which any agency is liable.

Suggestions have been made that the Life-boats should no longer be manned, as at present, by the fishermen and beach- men of the station, but either by a permanent crew maintained expressly for the purpose, or by the coastguard. The expense of maintaining a permanent crew, as compared with the present system, would be so great as to be in our opinion prohibitory. The objections to employing the coastguard are overwhelming. The coastguard is not sufficient in numbers.

The coastguard stations, moreover—being selected with a view to prohibit smuggling —are often not to be found where a Life- boat is most needed. The coastguardsmen are not necessarily good boatmen, and some of them have had no training as such; and in any case they are likely to be inferior in the local knowledge which gives to the beachmen and fishermen such skill in overcoming the difficulties of local currents, shoals, and rocks. More- over, the coastguard, being men of the first naval reserve, are withdrawn at least once a year for naval service.

Your Committee see no ground for recommending that the Life-boat Service should be taken over by the State, so long as it is maintained as efficiently and successfully as at present by public benevolence. There would be no saving of expense by the transference of the service to Government; and, so long as the crews which man the boats are volunteer crews, your Committee believe that they would work more successfully under the discreet administration of a well-selected local committtee than under the more rigid discipline of a Government Department. Your Committee consider that there are many advantages in com- mitting the control of this service as now, to a voluntary association of honourable men—who have in many cases devoted years of their lives, without pay or re- muneration of any sort, to the cause of life-saving—relying for funds on the beneficence of the people of these king- doms, and, for crews to man the boats, on the unfailing courage and devotion of the maritime population.

The following statement has been publicly made: " The men are underpaid by the Institution. They are permitted, however, to make as much profit as they can at the expense of persons saved." Your Committee report that, in the opinion of competent witnesses, the men are not underpaid; that the charges against the Institution of permitting the men to make a profit at the expense of persons saved is a reckless mis-statement, and the inference, that the men can, or do, make a profit at the expense of persons saved, is without any foundation or justifi- cation whatever. It is, moreover, a wholly unwarranted aspersion on a coast popula- tion, of whose devotion and heroism there is a long and almost unbroken record.

In respect to the salvage of property by Life-boat crews, as already explained under the heading "Property Salvage," a considerable amount of correspondence has passed between the committee of Lloyd's and the LIFE-BOAT INSTITUTION.

In the-first instance, the committee of Lloyd's contended " that the crews of Life-boats should not be permitted to do salvage service," but they afterwards modified their position, and stated that, in their opinion, "it would be for the benefit of all concerned, the boatmen, the Institution, and the shipping community, if the Life-boat crew continue to do salvage work, provided they accept Lloyd's form of agreement." Most serious charges have been publicly made as to the way in which the privilege accorded to the Life-boat crews of using the boats for property salvage has been abused; and these charges have received the authority of Lloyd's. Your Committee have inquired into several specific in- stances of exorbitant claims alleged to I have been made by the crews. These cases did not stand the test of cross- examination ; and, in the result, the case, as sought to be made for Lloyd's, was withdrawn. Your Committee are em- phatically of opinion that the attacks made upon the Institution in respect of property salvage, have been as unfounded, as they certainly have been mischievous.

Your Committee consider the existing practice of permitting the crews to make their own bargains with the masters or owners of the vessels to be salved, to be open to objection, and your Committee recommend that the Institution should only allow their crews to use the Institu- tion boats on condition of the crews agreeing to such terms, as to remune- ration, and arbitration in case of dispute, as the Institution may prescribe. These terms your Committee think the Institu- tion should settle in consultation with the Committee of Lloyd's and the Board of Trade.

LIFE-BOAT SATURDAY FUNDS.

Much evidence was given before your Committee as to comments by Mr. Charles Wright Macara, of Manchester, upon the ROYAL NATIONAL LIFE-BOAT INSTITUTION in regard to their management of the Life-boat Saturday Fund. This Fund had its origin in a demonstration organised and collection made under the direction of a committee in 1891. These were very successful; and consequently committees having in view the same object were formed in many parts of the United Kingdom. These committees have col- lected, by means of demonstrations in the streets of various towns, and by sub- scriptions and donations, and in other ways, large sums of money, which have been remitted to the ROYAL NATIONAL LIFE-BOAT INSTITUTION.

Street demonstrations are, necessarily, a costly means of collecting money; subject as they are to fluctuating results, owing to good or bad weather; therefore great care should be taken to prevent their expense from becoming excessive.

But your Committee are persuaded of the great good to be done by familiarising the people of inland towns, as well as others on the coast, with the work done by this Institution, and for it by the maritime population.

Your Committee find that the organisa- tion of the Saturday Life-boat Fund is representative of the subscribers to the fund, and gives the subscribers sufficient influence on the Committee of Manage- ment of the Institution.

Your Committee are of opinion that the charges of mismanagement brought against the Institution with regard to the Satur- day Life-boat Fund are entirely without foundation.

Your Committee cannot conclude their report without recording their opinion that the thanks of the whole community are due to the committee of the ROYAL NATIONAL LIFE-BOAT INSTITUTION for the energy and good management (often in very difficult circumstances) with which ;hey have for so many years successfully carried out the national work of life-saving, and this without reward or payment of any sort. And your Committee regret that it s not in their power to suggest some further protection for charitable institu- ions against the attacks of irresponsible persons, which attacks may, as in the resent case, turn out to be unfounded and untrue.

Ordered by the House of Commons to be Printed, 15th July, 1897.